Building the Case for Succession Planning in Higher ...

St. Cloud State UniversitytheRepository at St. Cloud StateCulminating Projects in Higher EducationAdministration

Department of Educational Leadership and HigherEducation

8-2018

Building the Case for Succession Planning inHigher Education: A Study of Succession PlanningPilots within the Minnesota State Colleges andUniversities SystemKristina KellerSt. Cloud State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds

Part of the Higher Education Commons

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Educational Leadership and Higher Education at theRepository at St.Cloud State. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culminating Projects in Higher Education Administration by an authorized administrator oftheRepository at St. Cloud State. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationKeller, Kristina, "Building the Case for Succession Planning in Higher Education: A Study of Succession Planning Pilots within theMinnesota State Colleges and Universities System" (2018). Culminating Projects in Higher Education Administration. 25.https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds/25

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/elhe?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/elhe?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1245?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/hied_etds/25?utm_source=repository.stcloudstate.edu%2Fhied_etds%2F25&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Building the Case for Succession Planning in Higher Education: A Study of Succession

Planning Pilots within the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System

by

Kristina Keller

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faulty of

St. Cloud State University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree

Doctor of Education

in Higher Education Administration

August 2018

Dissertation Committee:

Steven McCullar, Chairperson

Michael Mills

Jodi Kuznia

Melissa Majerus

2

Abstract

This qualitative research study examines the role of succession planning in five two-year

colleges in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system (MnSCU). The role of

succession planning to help prepare colleges for the leadership crisis is examined by exploring

the participation of these colleges in a system pilot program. Succession planning, commonly

used in business and private sector, remains a new concept in higher education. Thus, the

purpose of this qualitative study will be to identify the challenges that prevent campuses from

succession planning, tie leadership pipeline issues and their resolution to succession planning

practices, and provide recommendations on how to capitalize on the opportunities presented

through succession planning initiatives. College CHRO’s and other involved college leaders

were interviewed about their participation in the succession planning pilot, including their use of

an adopted framework, to understand if and how succession planning impacted their ability to

mitigate the factors of the leadership crisis. The results from the research provide new

knowledge to inform the existing body of research, highlights information about the impact of

succession planning, and gives guidance on the design and implementation of succession

planning.

3

Acknowledgements

Education has provided me a path to a stronger, happier, more fulfilled life and for this I

am grateful. A process like writing a dissertation teaches you a lot about yourself, your

relationships, and what you find valuable. The highest value, which I place on my family, dear

friends, and new arrivals, has often taken precedence over this process but I would not do

anything different. My priorities are these people. We are blessed. Thank you for thinking I

could do something like this even when I didn’t believe it myself. As Barbara Bush said, “At the

end of your life you will never regret not having passed one more test, not winning one more

verdict or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a friend, a

child, or a parent.”

To Missy, my friend and colleague of almost twenty years. You made the impossible

task of finishing this document possible. Wisdom, encouragement, timelines, prodding, editing,

and tough love only made me respect you more. Only you understood how hard this was for

me. Cheers to another twenty years. I am also thankful to many other old friends who were with

me through all or some of this - each of you played a part in sustaining me through this process

and I am grateful. Finally, to my new family, Rob and Amanda. Thank you for supporting me

and keeping me on track to finish my homework every weekend.

I firmly believe having a pet in a process like this is critical for sanity, levity, and

companionship. Syd, you were my constant homework helper and giving up weekends or a fun

event was easier because you were there. Finishing this without you wasn’t easy and I miss you

every day.

Finally thank you to my committee, Dr. Steven McCullar, Dr. Michael Mills, Dr. Jodi

Kuznia, and Dr. Melissa Majerus. This research is better because of you.

4

Table of Contents

Page

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................8

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................9

Chapter

I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................10

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................11

Anticipated High Level Leadership Turnover .....................................................11

Lack of Perceived Qualified Potential Successors...............................................12

Lack of Research and Standard Practice ..............................................................13

Description and Scope of Research .................................................................................15

Research Method .............................................................................................................16

Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................................18

Delimitations and Positioning ..........................................................................................20

Summary ..........................................................................................................................22

II. Literature Review ....................................................................................................................25

The Business Case for Succession Planning ....................................................................27

Succession Planning Frameworks........................................................................30

Utilizing Leadership Competencies in Succession Planning ...............................32

Succession Planning in Higher Education .......................................................................38

Higher Education Leadership Conditions ............................................................40

Unique Mission of Two-Year Colleges ...............................................................53

Leadership Development – A Critical Element of Succession Planning .............55

5

Chapter Page

A Summary of Recent Studies of Succession Planning in Higher Education .....58

Succession Planning in the Minnesota State Colleges and

Universities System (MnSCU) ................................................................64

Managing Talent for Successful Succession........................................................67

Literature Review Synthesis ............................................................................................73

Connecting Literature to the Research Questions ............................................................78

Summary ..........................................................................................................................80

III. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................82

Research Method and Design ..........................................................................................83

Participants .......................................................................................................................86

Confidentiality and Informed Consent.............................................................................87

Data Collection ................................................................................................................89

Interview ..............................................................................................................89

Document Analysis ..............................................................................................90

Observation ..........................................................................................................91

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................92

Delimitations and Positioning ..........................................................................................93

Delimitations ........................................................................................................94

Researcher Position ..............................................................................................95

Summary ..........................................................................................................................97

IV. Results ..................................................................................................................................98

Research Question Results ...............................................................................................100

6

Chapter Page

Succession Planning Utilization – Research Question One .................................100

Current Efforts in Succession Planning – Research Question Two .....................112

Framework Utilization – Research Question Three.............................................132

Succession Planning Sustainability – Research Question Four ...........................143

Summary ..........................................................................................................................159

V. Discussion and Conclusions...................................................................................................165

Results Summary .............................................................................................................165

Succession Planning Utilization ..........................................................................165

College Engagement in Succession Planning ......................................................166

Framework Adoption and Utilization ..................................................................168

Succession Planning Sustainability......................................................................169

Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................170

Recommendations ............................................................................................................171

Engage in Succession Planning to Prepare For Turnover and Minimize

Operational Gaps .....................................................................................172

Succession Planning as Part of Strategic Planning ..............................................174

Adopt a Framework .............................................................................................175

Succession Planning as Part of a Culture of Leadership......................................177

Establishing Succession Planning Measures as Part of Continuous

Improvement ............................................................................................178

Experience the Benefits of Succession Planning .................................................181

Limitations .......................................................................................................................182

7

Chapter Page

Future Research ...............................................................................................................184

Summary ..........................................................................................................................186

References ..............................................................................................................................189

Appendices

A. Leadership Competency Comparison ........................................................................198

B. Informed Consent.......................................................................................................199

C. Interview Question Guide ..........................................................................................201

D. IRB Approval .............................................................................................................202

8

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Succession Planning Model Comparisons .............................................................................66

2. Participant Pseudonym Chart .................................................................................................99

9

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. Succession Planning Framework Utilized by MnSCU ..........................................................65

10

Chapter I: Introduction

The concern surrounding the retirements of college and university leaders in presidential,

administrative, and linchpin positions has led to an increasing amount of research on how to

prepare future leaders in higher education (Ebbers, Conover & Samuel, 2010; Keim & Murray,

2010; Neefe, 2009; Richards, 2009; Runestad, 2014). Succession planning, a process for

identifying and developing internal people with the necessary skills and capabilities to fill key

leadership positions has been a topic of study in business and industry for over half a century, but

only in the last two decades has higher education begun to more closely examine the topic in an

effort to prepare for the predicted increase in leadership turnover (Davies & Davies, 2010;

Gaffney, 2005; Keim & Murray, 2010; Luna, 2010; Middlehurst, 2008; Neefe, 2009). This

turnover, often referred to as a “leadership crisis” in academic and education literature, is a

reflection of the lack of qualified potential candidates to fill vacated leadership positions (Ebbers

et al., 2010; Gaffney, 2005; Luna, 2010; Neefe, 2009, Rothwell, 2010). Without qualified

successors, institutions are left with vacated positions in mid and upper level administrative

ranks that are critical to successful college operations.

In making the case for succession planning, institutions often identify key linchpin

positions in which to focus their efforts. This includes senior administrative positions that

include chief academic, student affairs, financial, human resources, and information officers that

may also be referred to as provosts, vice presidents, and executive directors. Additional linchpin

positions within colleges as identified in the 2010 Luoma Action Group’s study (MnSCU 2010)

also include positions with working titles such as dean, director, and manager and come from a

variety of operational areas within institutions that include academic operations, business office,

registration, admissions, enrollment, development/fundraising, facilities, and marketing.

11

Significance of the Study

The lack of qualified potential candidates to fill vacated leadership positions has

increased higher education’s interest in the principles of succession planning (Ebbers et al.,

2010; Gaffney, 2005; Luna, 2010; McMaster, 2012; Neefe, 2009, Rothwell, 2010). According to

the literature, there are several conditions, as outline below, that frame why succession planning

is so important to solving the institutional problems that stem from the predicted leadership crisis

(Betts et al., 2009; Cook & Kim, 2012; Luna, 2010; Mann, 2010; Shults, 2001).

Anticipated high level leadership turnover. The first condition is anticipated high

level of leadership turnover within higher education institutions. Retirements within community

college administration will play a major role in the high level leadership turnover in upcoming

years (AACC, 2012). In community colleges, 47% of the workforce is over 50, the average age

of c-suite administrators is 54, and the average presidential age is 61 (Boerner, 2015; Boggs,

2003; AACC, 2012). Presidential and c-suite level positions are expected to retire at a rate of

75% within a ten year period (Teckle, 2012). National research suggests a similar retirement

pattern for community college presidents, with 84% retiring by 2016 (Betts, Urias, Chavez, &

Betts, 2009). For example, 16 of the 61 member Association of American Universities college

presidents turned over in 2012 (Kiley, 2012). Since the most likely successors to these high level

positions are also aging, the pool of potential replacements for these positions is even smaller

(Davies & Davies, 2010; Keim & Murray, 2008; Rothwell, 2010). However, retirements are not

the only reason for a higher rate of turnover. According to the 2012 American Council on

Education report, the time in these positions has also decreased by one-and-a-half years (Cook &

Kim, 2012). Attributed to the increased position responsibilities and challenges such as; fiscal

pressures, array of constituents, and political climates, individuals are retained in positions for

12

shorter periods of time (ACE, 2012; Cook & Kim, 2012). Therefore, these unprecedented levels

of turnover in college and university presidential positions place question on how these

individuals will be recruited, prepared, hired and evaluated.

Lack of perceived qualified potential successors. A second condition that highlights

the importance of succession planning is the lack of perceived qualified potential successors in

linchpin positions. Individuals in line to fill vacated leadership positions are perceived as being

less capable, having less experience, and as lacking the education, training or skills necessary to

be successful (MnSCU, 2010; Neefe, 2009). This perception is based on several factors. First, a

steep decline in the number of conferred doctoral degrees to community college leaders (Keim &

Murray, 2008) and specifically to community college administration (Evelyn, 2001) coupled

with a decrease in the offering of graduate and doctoral-level programs in the field of community

college leadership and administration (The Council for the Study of Community Colleges, 2015)

have negatively impacted the ability of potential successors to formally prepare for community

college leadership positions.

Second, the increased discrepancy in diverse representation on the career ladder of

colleges when compared to student populations (Harlety, Eckel, & King, 2009) and the lack of

attention paid to preparing their current mid-level leaders (Wolverton, Ackerman & Holt, 2005)

have diminished the ability of these individuals to assume higher level administrative positions.

Progressive experience is critical to career path development yet, since position requirements

mandate existing experience, younger applicants, women, and minorities are often not able to

secure experiences that build the strengths required to assume leadership positions (Land, 2003;

Klein & Salk, 2013).

13

Third, leadership responsibilities in higher education increasingly require individuals to

fulfill multiple roles including fundraising, mentorship, politician, figurehead, innovator, and

public steward, which further add to the need for skilled, experienced leaders who can transition

quickly into leadership positions (AACC, 2005; MnSCU, 2012). These broader and more

complex job responsibilities in leadership positions require ongoing administrative experiences

(Keim & Murray, 2008) yet administrative positions become less desirable as long hours,

inability to balance personal and professional lives, and increasing external pressures are

observed by potential successors and applicants (Evelyn, 2001; Land, 2003; Moser, 2008).

Incoming administrators and presidents themselves report feeling underprepared for the

overwhelming nature of the positions they assume (Shults, 2001). This need for advanced

cumulative experiences along with the observed and experienced consequences of the sacrifices

of the position directly impact the pool of applicants for high level leadership positions (Land,

2003; Moser, 2008; Shults, 2001).

Finally, the competition for talent between institutions and outside of higher education

has become a challenge. As the pool of perceived potential candidates decreases, colleges must

compete with the private sector, for-profit and private institutions, universities, and elementary

and secondary schools to attract and retain talent (Evelyn, 2001; Bornstein, 2010). As

incentives, salaries, and programs to attract talent increase, individuals can successfully seek

employment outside the college environment to capitalize on greater rewards (Evelyn, 2001).

Lack of research and standard practice. The third condition that highlights the

importance of succession planning is the lack of research and shared best practice of how to

prepare successors to assume leadership positions. Research on why successors are not

prepared, what skills and abilities are needed for leadership positions, and how they should

14

prepare for higher education leadership positions varies. Additionally, the skill set of

administration varies by institution type (technical college, community college, combined

college, multiple campus-college, university, private or public) and geographic location (AACC,

2013; Betts et al., 2009; Land, 2003).

Moreover, institutions vary widely in practices and processes related to recruiting and

hiring practices, incentive packages, job requirements, onboarding practices, retention strategies,

and professional development opportunities which make it challenging for applicants to

understand the process, set expectations, and advance to new positions (Moser, 2008; Rich 2006;

Robken, 2007). As institutions continue to proceed with own insular strategies or practices they

spend little time evaluating the return on investment or assessing the effectiveness of these

methods (Runestad, 2014).

The research around succession planning in the higher education environment is also in

its beginning stages. Research and results of succession planning strategies, initiatives, and

programs are much more readily available in the business and corporate environment, however

this research is applicable to higher education (Gaffney, 2005; Neefe, 2009). The topics of

leadership development and performance evaluation in higher education, both components of a

succession planning strategy, are beginning to emerge to support research in succession planning

(Boggs & Kent, 2002; Davies & Davies, 2010). However, the actual use of succession planning

strategies, programs, and initiatives within the two-year college environment is much less

developed, leaving a gap in research and an opportunity to study the application of this topic

within a specific environment (Neefe, 2009).

To better prepare for succession planning in higher education, it is imperative that we

explore the obstacles faced by potential successors and the conditions needed to facilitate their

15

access to leadership positions in higher education. This research will present a review of the

literature that explores the use of succession planning in business and industry, in higher

education, and in a specific system environment. The conditions that drive the significance of

this study; anticipated high turnover, lack of perceived qualified successors, and lack of research

will be woven throughout the literature review to further establish need while presenting a

variety of past and present factors that integrate the need for succession planning in the higher

education environment.

Description and Scope of Research

The purpose of this qualitative study will be to identify the challenges that prevent

campuses from succession planning, tie pipeline issues and their resolution to succession

planning practices, and provide recommendations on how to capitalize on the opportunities

presented through succession planning initiatives. The research will aim to capture the

experiences five colleges that are part of the fourth largest state system in the United States

during a succession planning pilot program in a two-year union environment (MnSCU, 2015).

This will be accomplished by investigating the relationship between the use of succession

planning at two year colleges and the institutions ability to mitigate the challenges that prevent

campuses from engaging in succession planning. The results of this study will help inform

institutions or systems as they embark of the use of succession planning in preparing for a

leadership crisis in linchpin leadership positions and provide recommendations on how to

capitalize on opportunities presented through succession planning initiatives.

This study will attempt to answer four research questions.

1. How have individual institutions utilized succession planning to prepare for or

resolve issues presented by the leadership crisis in higher education?

16

2. How do the current efforts of the pilot colleges (supported by the system) prepare

institutions for the leadership crisis?

3. How has the development of a modified and adopted framework for succession

planning been utilized/implemented within the college environment?

4. What experiences influence a campus’s ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot program

and continue in succession planning efforts over an extended period of time?

From this study of colleges piloting succession planning, recommendations can be made

to better prepare colleges for the leadership crisis and support the succession of prepared leaders

in linchpin and c-suite positions throughout the system. By exploring why colleges actively

engage in (or do not engage in) the strategies of succession planning this study can identify how

colleges experience the benefits of succession planning and provide recommendation on how to

remove barriers to assist colleges in implementing succession planning. This would strengthen

the pipeline of prepared administrative leaders thus increasing the availability of experienced,

capable, motivated employees who are prepared to assume key positions or roles when they

become available internally, within, or outside of the system. Finally, by examining the

college’s participation in the pilot program, a series of best practices for institutions embarking

on succession planning will be developed to guide future efforts.

Research Method

This proposed qualitative study will include two-year institutions in the Minnesota State

College and Universities system (MnSCU) who have self-selected to participate in a succession

planning pilot program. The sample of this study includes five of six colleges that responded to

an initial request from the MnSCU system office to participate in the pilot program. The sample

includes those who participated initially and stopped out and those who continue to participate,

17

thus representing participation at various stages of the succession planning process. At the time

of this study, the pilot process had been underway for approximately two years.

The pilot program is guided by an adapted version of the succession planning model

established by William R. Rothwell in his book (2005),“Effective Succession Planning:

Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within.” Rothwell’s (2005, 2010)

seven step succession planning model establishes clear requirements for succession planning that

were modified and adapted to higher education by MnSCU to establish a framework (also with

seven stages) to identify, develop, and promote leaders organizationally and within the system

(About Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, 2011). Each adapted stage includes clear

outcomes, defined value, common question and discussion points to address, and a supporting

package of tools, techniques, and strategies for accomplishing the outcomes of the stage.

Additional detail on the Rothwell and MnSCU modified model and framework of steps is

included in Chapter 2.

Data collection techniques utilized in this research included interviews, document

analysis, and direct observation to produce a holistic understanding of the succession planning

efforts being studied (Baxter & Jack, 2008). Interviews for this study were conducted with the

Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) at each participating institution in the pilot using a

semi-structured format with interview questions tied to the research questions of this study.

Additional interviews using the same questions and format were conducted based on

recommendations from the CHRO’s who identified an additional project lead or champion

within their institution.

Data analysis was ongoing and simultaneous with data collection during the course of

this study, as is accepted in qualitative research (Merriam, 2009). Using Miles and Huberman’s

18

(1994) interactive framework for qualitative data analysis as outlined by Punch (2009), the

researcher collected, reduced, displayed, and drew conclusions about the data in an ongoing way

throughout the study. The researcher examined the data generated throughout the process in

great detail to develop generalizations that emerged from the patterns observed in the data. The

analysis of the study produced information to enhance and expand the body of research around

succession planning in higher education and provides practical application to improve the

implementation of succession planning at colleges within the MnSCU system. Additional detail

about the research method, design, and implemented process can be found in Chapter 3.

Definition of Key Terms

Several terms used throughout this document encompass multiple meaning. To provide a

clear context and develop a firm understanding of the topic and research presented, the following

definitions will be used when referring to the terms below:

Talent management – Talent management is the overarching term that includes all the

planning, activity, and resources that focus on attracting, recruiting, retaining, and developing

employees to meet current and future institutional needs. Under the umbrella of talent

management are terms such as workforce planning, recruiting, onboarding, performance

management, training and development, leadership development, and succession planning

(MnSCU Talent Management, 2015).

Succession planning – Succession planning is a means of identifying critical management

positions, from manager or supervisor up to the highest position in the organization (Rothwell,

2010, p.6). Succession planning is part of an overall human resource strategy and preparation

process to address risk, build capacity, and create a pipeline of high-performing employees to

meet current and future organization needs (MnSCU Succession Planning, 2015).

19

C-Suite – Positions of senior administration that include chief academic (CAO), student

affairs (CSAO), financial (CFO), human resource (CHRO), and information officers (CIO).

These positions may also be referred to as provosts, vice presidents, and executive directors

within higher education organizational structures. C-suite, therefore, refers to the top level

administrators in an institution responsible for the college operations.

Linchpin positions - This includes senior administrative positions defined within the c-

suite but also includes positions or titles such as dean, director, and manager and come from a

variety of operational areas within institutions that include academic operations, business office,

registration, admissions, enrollment, development/fundraising, facilities, and marketing

(MnSCU, 2010).

Leadership crisis – A ‘perfect storm’ combination of three factors: the increase in current

and anticipated turnover due to retirement and attrition, a shrinking pipeline of successors for

vacated positions, and a perceived lack of preparedness to assume the responsibilities of key

leadership positions within higher education. (AACC, 2012; Betts et al., 2009; Cook & Kim,

2012; Luna, 2010; Mann, 2010; MNSCU, 2010; Shults, 2001).

Community college – As defined by this study, a community college is a regionally

accredited institution that grants certificates, diplomas and degrees up to the associates (two

year) level. In the scope of national research the term community college include junior

colleges, technical colleges, community colleges, and combined technical and community

colleges, as each state uniquely terms or defines their ‘two-year’ degree granting institutions.

MnSCU – Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU) is the fourth largest

statewide public higher education system in the United States made up of 31 institutions (7

Universities, 24 colleges) on 54 campuses located in 47 Minnesota communities that serve more

20

than 430,000 students annually (MnSCU, 2015). The law creating the state system was passed by

the Minnesota Legislature in 1991 and went into effect July 1, 1995. The system is governed by

a 15-member, governor appointed Board of Trustees, a system chancellor, system presidents, and

system policies and procedures. Oversight is provided by the Minnesota State Senate and House

of Representatives. The system operates on a budget of approximately 1.9 billion sourced from

tuition, state appropriation, and other sources (MnSCU, 2015).

Delimitations and Positioning

This study examines six individual college based efforts of succession planning at self-

identified pilot colleges within the MnSCU system. It will also consider the efforts of the

MnSCU system to support these planning efforts within the pilot colleges. The study does not

address succession planning efforts at universities within the same system or efforts at other

colleges not participating in the pilot program within the system. The study does not examine

other colleges or systems efforts nationally but does draw from data on national studies on

succession planning in higher education to inform research, findings, and conclusions.

The topic of leadership development and succession planning in higher education came to

my attention through my work experience as an unlimited (similar to tenure in the Minnesota

college system) faculty member, dean, and vice president level administrator since 2001. The

college where I am employed is part of the MnSCU system. I am also currently or have

previously been a member of several MnSCU system committees, taskforces, and activities

including the Talent Management Steering Committee, Succession Planning Taskforce,

Performance Management Taskforce, New Administrator Orientation programming, and several

training and development initiatives for deans.

21

My interest in the subject of professional development and leadership succession comes

from these work experiences and my own personal desire to better prepare myself and others for

future senior leadership positions in higher education. I am a 2007 graduate of the Luoma

Leadership Academy, an 18-month competitive entry leadership development program for

MnSCU employees. The leadership curriculum includes application of leadership skills and

concepts grounded in theoretical leadership concepts, principles and practices designed in

cooperation with The Academy for Leadership and Development in Mesa, Arizona. I am also a

part of the current Executive Leadership Development Program cohort (2015-2016), a year-long

program designed to strengthen the executive leadership pipeline of the MnSCU system. This

competitive entry, accelerated development program includes executive stretch assignments,

sponsorship, coaching, mentoring, seminars, networking, and case study experiences to produce

high potential, high performing leadership candidates. These experiences have expanded my

knowledge, perspective, and understanding of the need for succession planning that is

strategically designed to meet the needs of a large system.

I am also actively engaged in succession planning within the institution where I work. I

have participated in the development of the system support website, the facilitation of succession

planning at other colleges, in training and development around succession planning, and act as an

active advocate within the system for succession planning. This active involvement in the

subject has alerted me to the increasing need for succession planning at an institutional level as I

experience first-hand the operational consequences of failing to prepare for turnover.

I am concerned about the turnover in community colleges. I see and experience mid-

level directors and managers leaving higher education after burning out, dean’s turnover at an

alarming rate, a decreased time in position for c-suite administrators, and continued failed

22

searches for high level administrative positions. I know the demands of the positions, the wage

inequities, and the lack of personal and professional balance that exists for those in these

positions, and yet I see many persevere, succeed, and bring their institutions to unprecedented

levels of success. This study ultimately stems from my desire to better prepare myself and my

colleagues to better lead our MnSCU colleges in the 21st century and avoid a leadership crisis

(documented in the literature review) that could operationally paralyze our institutions. At the

core of the community college mission we develop engaged citizens, prepare a future workforce,

and deliver it in a lower-cost, supportive environment that serves those who need it most. How

will community colleges continue to deliver this important mission if they do not plan for and

invest in the people needed to lead these complex institutions in the future?

Summary

The need for succession planning within the higher education environment is becoming

increasingly clear as the effects of the leadership crisis begin to impact the long term institutional

health and advancement of colleges in a time of unprecedented change (Austin, 2015; Ebbers

et.al, 2010; Land, 2003; Rich, 2006). The nuances of leadership in higher education require a

long list of competencies: administrators who balance priorities, respond to demand in a

competitive market, understand fiscal processes and accountability – a seemingly endless list

(Rich, 2006). Yet how to prepare these individuals to assume linchpin positions and key

leadership roles seems to elude colleges as the impact of the leadership crisis looms (AACC,

2012; Betts et al., 2009; Cook & Kim, 2012; Luna, 2010; Mann, 2010; MNSCU, 2010; Shults,

2001).

The key to succession planning is to start now. Rooted in several key principles – that

leadership can be learned and is a life-long process, employees at all levels can lead, and that

23

leadership is effective management and vision – the leadership crisis can be averted with the

strategies and methods encompassed in succession planning (AACC, 2005; Rothwell, 2010).

Higher education can produce its new leaders but it requires that institutions understand the value

and fit of succession planning within the academic environment and begin to plan for the

effective development of internal potential leaders now to prepare the next generation of

leadership (Austin, 2015; Rich, 2006).

This qualitative study will examine how five pilot community colleges attempted to adopt

succession planning as a strategy to prepare their institutions and a larger system for a leadership

crisis. Their efforts and experiences will explore how succession planning efforts, guided by an

implementation framework, tie leadership pipeline gaps and their resolution to succession

planning practices, identify the challenges that slow progress or prevent campuses from

succession planning, and provide recommendations on how to capitalize on the opportunities

presented through succession planning initiatives. By investigating the relationship between the

use of succession planning at two year colleges and the institutions ability to mitigate the

challenges that prevent campuses from engaging in succession planning, the results of this study

will help inform institutions or systems as they embark of the use of succession planning in

preparing for a leadership crisis in linchpin leadership positions.

The following chapter will provide an overview and analysis of the existing body of

literature on succession planning and drill down to specific research as it relates to its application

within higher education. It will culminate by examining the existing practices of succession

planning within the system environment of this study. In chapter 3 research questions, research

method and design, and analysis procedures will be described. Chapters 4 and 5 will present the

24

findings of the research conducted and provide an analysis and conclusions based on the results

of research in this qualitative study.

25

Chapter II: Literature Review

This literature review will examine current research and practice regarding succession

planning in higher education. The review will begin by covering the broad field of succession

planning in business and industry and then move into research and application in higher

education. The review will systematically present the research related to the leadership crisis in

higher education including the opportunities and consequences associated with turnover in

linchpin and c-suite level leadership positions. Aspects of leadership theory and practice related

to the topic will be included throughout the review, with a focus on the succession planning

research and practice. Established frameworks and models utilized will be presented as best

practices are examined. Reference to other quantitative and qualitative research studies on

succession planning and leadership development will be woven throughout the review to

articulate key findings on succession planning. A summary of four dissertations on succession

planning in the two-year college environment will culminate this section of the review. The

purpose of this section is to examine how each of the study’s methodology and research impacts

the research questions of this study and provide increased depth to the body of research

examined in the literature review.

Moving from a broad overview to a specific industry, higher education, the review will

next focus on the succession planning research and efforts of one state system. The goals and

efforts of the system and its member colleges in succession planning are guided by a Board of

Trustees, system chancellor, and a system level talent management office. The efforts of the

system are guided by a widely accepted framework from William R. Rothwell as described

during the overview section of the literature review. This modified framework will be presented

26

as a process for the system as it introduces succession planning to its colleges and universities

and works to implement its goals across the state.

Broadly, succession planning is defined as the process for identifying and developing

employees with the potential to fill leadership positions (Berchelman, 2005; Neefe, 2009). More

familiar terms related to succession planning, such as ‘replacement planning,’ ’strengthening the

pipeline,’ and ‘transition planning,’ refer to the same concept – increasing the availability of

experienced, capable, motivated employees who are prepared to assume key positions or roles

when they become available (Conger & Fulmer, 2003). This process for developing talent to

meet current and future workforce needs requires building leadership knowledge, skills, and

abilities with intentionality to add stability (Runestad, 2014). As Robken (2007) notes, stable

leadership supports stable organizations.

Succession planning is not a stand-alone process but is part of a larger effort to manage

talent. Talent management is a process for developing and integrating new employees,

developing and retaining current employees, and attracting a highly-skilled workforce (Davies &

Davies, 2010). The talent management system involves the policies, procedures, processes, and

practices that help create a better prepared, more effective workforce and establish a culture of

development (Neefe, 2009; Rich, 2006; Runestad, 2014). Succession planning, leadership

development, human resource management, and workforce planning are all important

components of talent management. What differentiates succession planning from other

components of talent management is its focus. According to Gaffney (2005) succession planning

is a way to help organizations identify, develop, and promote employees from within as part of a

comprehensive talent management strategy. It is an active and continuous process that involves

27

developing internal talent to meet current and future workforce needs (Rothewell, 2002;

Rothwell, 2010).

Succession planning is not grooming or cloning. Grooming indicates there is a clear

successor that is pre-identified, usually by the current person in the position or a higher level

supervisor (Pierce, 2015). This type of action often leads organizations down a path of bias,

where people are picked based on who they are replacing and how much they are alike (Pierce,

2015). This tendency to favor those who look, behave, or have similar characteristics is why

succession planning helps organizations plan and take active steps toward mitigating built-in bias

and prepare for the future, not replicate the past (Pierce, 2015). The goal of the succession

planning process is to identify and develop employees with potential in order to increase the

availability of experienced, capable, motivated employees who are prepared to take on future

roles and responsibilities as they become available (Berchelman, 2005). This heightened

awareness for a more strategic approach and comprehensive effort to establish the principles of

effective succession is about preparing future leaders, not pre-selecting or favoring individuals.

It is about deliberately and systematically working to ensure continuity in key positions and

developing the intellectual capital for the future (Rothwell, 2010).

The Business Case for Succession Planning

According to Pierce (2015), succession planning involves establishing a culture that

serves the institution and enables it to thrive, leaving it in a better place long after any one

individual can have an impact. This groundwork gives opportunity for future success and creates

a community of employees who care about each other and their individual and collective success

(Pierce, 2015). Building intentional culture with defined values and a shared vision is what Jim

Collins (2001) described as part of Level 5 leadership in his book, “Good to Great: Why Some

28

Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t.” Collins (2001) developed hierarchy of

leadership that include five levels, where level 5 refers to the highest level in the hierarchy of

executive capabilities that encompass all other levels including from level 1 to 4; highly capable

individual, contributing team member, competent manager, and effective leader (p. 20-21).

What Collins (2001) research found is that level 5 leadership is what differentiates a good

company from a great organization and a key feature of this leadership involves setting up

successors for success. This means that leaders in great organizations prepare the organization to

continue to thrive when they are gone by focusing on the development of people and the

successors needed to move the organization forward and prosper (Collins, 2001). These level 5

leaders want to see their organizations succeed in the next generation and are comfortable with

not getting the credit for it, whereas comparison leaders are more concerned with their own

greatness and gain rather than the success of the company after they are gone (Collins, 2001, p.

26). These critical characteristics of humility and will to build a sustainable culture of success as

defined in level 5 leadership embody the purpose of succession planning.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) is the world’s largest human

resource (HR) membership organization and conducts published research on a myriad of HR

topics, issues, policy, and standards. SHRM (2015) defines the business case for succession

planning as a necessary strategy for moving from reactive replacement to proactive planning that

includes monitoring, developing, and retaining critical talent. This results in a positive impact on

the bottom line through continued effective performance with leadership continuity (SHRM,

2015). Often organizations focus on what will happen if a linchpin position person leaves rather

than on preparing for the next person to take over. Since increasing job mobility is a

characteristic of our current and future workforce, it is important to focus on building a robust

29

channel of talent to mitigate the operational gaps, smooth transitions, and build capacity

(Boerner, 2015). The practical side of succession planning is simply based in the need to prepare

for impending retirements and turnover that impacts current leadership and the leadership

pipeline (Shults, 2001, SHRM, 2009).

The interest in succession planning in business stems from survival, which is dependent

on having the right leadership (Rothwell, 2002; Rothwell, 2010). In his book, “Effective

Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within,”

Rothwell (2010) notes that succession planning is critical to having the “right people in the right

places at the right times to do the right things to get the right results (p. 15).” This may sound

familiar as Collin’s (2001) described how organizations go from good to great by using the

example of a bus. This commonly cited passage in Collin’s (2001) book noted that companies

that go from good to great start by getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the

bus, and the right people in the right seats (p. 13). Rather than hope and chance, both Collins

(2001) and Rothwell (2010) note that a system to identify and prepare people for current and

future positions is critical to sustained success. This supports the key concept of intentionality

when developing talent to meet current and future workforce needs (Runestad, 2014).

The concept of succession planning as a system comes from the realization that human

talent is an asset on the organizational balance sheet. After years of downsizing, rightsizing, and

redesigning the middle layers of management, organizations have leaned their own pools of

talent and reduced their capacity to replace individuals in vacated positions (Rothwell, 2010).

The result is that organizations have cut to the point where they have fewer people to identify,

develop, promote, and retain which creates a talent deficit (Rothwell, 2010). This deficit heavily

30

impacts those who remain with the organization as high performers are overloaded, under-

rewarded, and eventually dissatisfied with their work and environment (Rothwell, 2010).

Without strategic succession planning, practices like grooming, where current leaders

tend to identify and groom successors who look, act, and have similar values to themselves,

create ‘homeosocial reproduction’ leading to discriminatory practices (MnSCU, 2013; Pierce,

2015; Rothwell, 2010, p.15). Although not necessarily intentional, this homeosocial

reproduction breeds similar thoughts, ideas, and actions and leads to exclusivity that works

against common organizational goals of innovation, creativity, and diversification, thus not

preparing for the business environment of the future (Rothwell, 2010).

Overall, these noted repercussions of failing to invest in the human assets within an

organization detract from organizational success. The goal of succession planning is to create

and maintain a system that focuses instead on preparedness, development, and potential which,

in turn, requires purpose, structure, and clarity (Rothwell, 2010). To facilitate the

implementation of intentional and strategic succession planning structures, organizations utilize

clear frameworks and defined leadership competencies as described in the next section.

Succession planning frameworks. To create a system for succession planning, two

frameworks were identified as the primary resources for organizational use: SHRM’s (2009)

defined steps of effective succession planning, and Rothwell’s (2006, 2010) succession planning

model. Both are globally recognized and have key stages defined by actions steps or

characteristics the move organizations forward in the process of planning for leadership

transitions.

In its 2009 publication, SHRM suggested clear steps to create a succession planning

process and defined the key competencies of succession planning. These steps include 1. Adapt

31

to demographic changes and talent scarcity, 2. Identify skill gaps and training needs, 3. Retain

institutional knowledge in a knowledge economy, 4. Boost morale and retention by investing in

employees, 5. Replace unique or highly specialized competencies (SHRM, 2009). These steps

encompass the planning and activities that support the strategic growth of talent and link

leadership development and performance to organizational outcomes. SHRM’s approach to

succession planning is holistic and does not modify to any specific industry or individual, but

rather focuses on an organization’s specific needs and broader strategies, goals, and objectives

(SHRM, 2015). The model also takes into consideration the speed and type of change, industry

complexity, and how work has/will modify (SHRM, 2015). Finally, SHRM recommends that

formality in process, systemic and systematic approaches, and tailored initiatives that are

experientially based (also called stretch assignments) be utilized throughout the steps to create an

effective succession planning management system (SHRM, 2015). Table 1 below graphically

depicts the steps of the SHRM (2009) model.

Rothwell’s (2010) seven step succession planning model has a strong focus on

developing people and includes: 1. Making a commitment to and establishing a systematic

succession planning program, 2. Assessing present work requirements in key positions and

clarifying key individuals who would be hard to replace due to unique knowledge, skills, and

abilities (KSA’s), 3. Appraise individual performance with an inventory of talent to understand

current human assets, 4. Assessing future work requirements and competencies that align with

the organizations strategic goals, 5. Assessing future individual potential with an established and

objective process that is future oriented, 6. Closing the developmental gap with leadership

development opportunities and internal promotion methods to meet succession needs, and 7.

Evaluating the succession planning program with continuous improvements and ongoing

32

commitment (p. 83-85). The outlined steps include what Rothwell (2010) identified as minimum

requirements for succession planning such as written policies and procedures, strong

communicated value statements, multi-rater/360/full circle assessments, individual development

plans, skill inventories, and a personal commitment from the top (president/CEO).

When the two models are compared, the similarities are clear. There is a strong focus on

identifying human resource needs that accomplish organization mission and strategy. The

process to identify the needs and people to fill those needs is based on what the organization sees

as critical to current and future operations. Although they use different terminology, the

concepts of talent management, leadership development, and workforce planning are engrained

within the succession process to recruit, retain, and promote internally which demonstrate a long

term commitment to investing in people (SHRM, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). The expectation is that

this investment in human assets will produce a strong return, thus a system of evaluating results

and using said results for continuous improvement is ongoing and systematic. To meet

organizational mission and strategy for the future, both frameworks also utilize defined

leadership competencies to help guide development of employees.

Utilizing leadership competencies in succession planning. As Kotter (1999) explains,

“more change demands more leadership” (p. 53). Faster technological change, greater

competition, market deregulation, globalization, over-capacity and instability in capital intensive

industries, changing workforce demographics, and an overall increasing rate and magnitude of

change have shifted the business world (Kotter, 1999; Rothwell, 2010). These shifts have

generated a business environment that has redefined what leaders really do creating an

opportunity to capitalize on the strategies of succession planning. Kotter’s (1999, 2007) work on

defining management and leadership as compliments have led the way for organizations to

33

redefine how their own expected and required competencies in linchpin positions are articulated.

This renewed focus on competencies as part of assessing employee potential and performance is

a key step in effective succession planning as noted in SHRM’s (2009) defined steps for

effective succession planning and Rothwell’s (2010) succession planning model. The next

section will further examine the current approaches that have and continue to shape leadership

competency definitions.

Theoretical roots of leadership competencies. Competencies are about work

performance and results and their identification and assessment are foundational to effective

succession planning (Rothwell, 2010, p. 87-88). Because succession planning is not an exclusive

activity but rather an inclusive strategy of long term leadership development and preparedness,

the concept of competency within a succession planning program is rooted in leadership theory.

Several theories, models, and practices have informed the concept of leadership competencies

including trait, skill, transformational and servant approaches. The following paragraphs

summarize the work within each approach and its tie to leadership competencies as utilized with

succession planning.

The trait approach focuses on determining specific traits that differentiate leaders from

followers and the quality of those traits which individuals possess (Northouse, 2013, p. 19). As

researchers (Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Mann, 1959; Lord, Devader, and Alliger, 1986; and

Kirkpatrick and Lock, 1991) began to research and analyze different traits that leaders possessed

within organizations, specific traits were positively associated with leadership (Northouse,

2013). These traits like intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability

continue to present themselves in leadership trait research as these are traits organizations want

leaders to have or develop as they take on advancing leadership roles (Northouse, 2013).

34

Heavily focused in personality or character, these approaches do not account for situational

context, are highly subjective and lack a definitive list, and do not tie traits to actual outcomes,

thus making the approach less useful in succession planning initiatives (Northouse, 2013).

However, the initial traits identified have become increasingly common in other approaches and

organizational competency descriptions.

The skills approach continues focus on the individual (leader) and includes personality

characteristics, however it expands to develop models of organizational leadership that include

knowledge and abilities that can be learned and developed (Northouse, 2013). Researchers such

as Katz (1955); Bass (1990); Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishmann (2000); and

Yammarino (2000) examined individual attributes, competencies, and leadership outcomes as a

map for effective performance (Northouse, 2013). The body of research acknowledges that

individual attributes and competencies can be developed through career experiences and that all

components are impacted by environmental influences, which ultimately impact effectiveness

and performance (Northouse, 2013). Although very general with weak predictive value (it does

not explain how skills lead to or impact performance), the skills approach does acknowledge that

competencies development is tied to performance which is a key component of succession

planning models (Northouse, 2013).

Transformational leadership emphasizes intrinsic motivation, development of individuals,

empowerment, and other more affective components of leadership that change or ‘transform’

individuals (Northouse, 2013). Many researchers (Downton, 1973; Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; and

Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, and Sosik, 2011) have developed several factors of leadership that define

transformational leadership and are summarized by Northouse (2013) as idealized influence,

charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (p.

35

191). Often used to as an antonym to transactional leadership, transformational leadership ties

the above factors to a leadership process with expected outcomes and performance expectations

and also emphasizes the need for growth and development of employees (Northouse, 2013).

Collectively, these key components of competency development are also represented in

succession planning (Rothwell, 2010). However, the measurement of these factors in

transformational leadership and the ability to gauge its effectiveness on transforming individuals

and organizations is anecdotal at best as the link between positive outcomes (like changes in

employee performance and increases in organizational effectiveness) with the factors of

transformational leadership are not yet established (Northouse, 2013).

Servant leadership also focuses on the point of view of the leader but emphasizes

additional characteristics that demonstrate attentiveness, empathy, nurturing, and service to

others (Northouse, 2013). Credited with the term servant leadership, Robert Greenleaf’s work

(1970) is referenced by others like Spears (2002), Covey (2002), Senge (2002), Wheatley (2002),

Bennis (2002), Russell and Stone (2002), Patterson (2003), Blanchard and Hodges (2003), Hale

and Fields (2007) and many others who have used the conceptual framework to build new

models, define characteristics, and distinguish the behaviors of servant leaders from other

leadership theories, styles, and approaches (Northouse, 2013). Servant leader behaviors are

influenced by preexisting conditions such as context and culture, leader attributes, and follower

receptivity which lead to desired outcomes that focus on follower performance and growth,

organizational performance, and societal impact (Northouse, 2013; p. 225). Succession

planning’s priority of building talent to increase performance and the pipeline of qualified,

prepared employees to increase performance and effectiveness ties readily to servant leadership’s

focus on building follower/employee through focused attention and development. However,

36

servant leadership is not a robust or researched enough concept to have defined and proven

abilities, traits, and behaviors to alone influence the definition of key leadership competencies

within succession planning (Northouse, 2013).

In his book, “Good to Great,” Collins (2001) also examined competencies when defining

his levels of leadership from a level 1 highly capable individual who makes productive

contributions to a level 5 executive who builds enduring greatness through a blend of personal

humility and professional will. Noted in the hierarchy of leadership is the focus on building

talent, individual capabilities, achievement of objectives, and the personality and behavioral

traits of leaders within each level (Collins, 2001, p. 20). Direct ties to characteristics, factors,

skills, and traits can be found within this hierarchy from all the leadership approaches reviewed

above; trait, skill, transformational, and servant. In addition, the focus on high performance

standards, building talent, resource allocation, and ongoing personal and professional

development in Collins (2001) book tie closely to the definition and noted frameworks of


As summarized, each of these approaches to leadership theory and practice include

components of traits and skills, abilities and capabilities, and competency definition. Each also

advances an ever-expanding and complex view of leadership with a growing focus on

competencies that shape the human capacity with organizations.

Competencies as a vital component of succession planning. Concern surrounding

leadership retirement and turnover has led to an increasing amount of research on what

leadership qualities and traits are needed and how to better prepare future leaders (Kotter, 1999;

Kotter, 2007; Mann, 2010; Rothwell, 2010; SHRM, 2009). Other research supports the use of

competency based assessment in leadership development as part of succession planning (Sinady,

37

Floyd, & Mulder, 2010). Rothwell (2010) summarizes several reasons why competencies are

critical to succession planning. These include alignment of organizational competencies to job

competencies, defining high potential employees, clarifying future competencies essential to

organization success, providing a basis for performance management, creating assessments that

fit organizational culture, and designing development opportunities that meet individual and

organizational needs. Both SHRM and Rothwell have extensively researched competency

models to support and/or define traits to utilize within their succession planning frameworks.

SHRM (2015) defines seven categories of competencies: leadership, initiative, judgment,

planning and organizing, teamwork, commitment, and political savvy. Each category has several

defined characteristics that detail the components of each competency. These details create a

rich description of each competency to support a definition that is comprehensive yet flexible.

Rothwell (2010) does not recommend specific competencies or traits for organizations, but rather

focuses on providing guidance on how organizations can build and define culture specific

competencies for themselves. Rothwell (2010) does, however, emphasize that competency

identification and definition are foundational to effective succession planning and notes that

without competency identification and assessment, organizations tend to focus on work activities

only, not what people need to be successful within the organization.

As leaders attempt to prepare themselves for increased responsibilities and new roles, this

research can be utilized to push for development opportunities that increase competency in key

areas. Current leaders should take responsibility for creating a corporate culture where people

value strong leadership and strive to create it through preparation (Kotter, 2007). As Kotter

(1999) said, “Institutionalizing a leadership-centered culture is the ultimate act of leadership” (p.

65).

38

Succession Planning in Higher Education

If succession planning is so important in other industries, one can reasonably suggest that

it can also have a positive impact in higher education in a time of leadership crisis (Robken,

2007). Key differences between business and public higher education, such as civil service

systems, forced talent pool approaches (must equally develop anyone who wants to be), and the

role of the customer (student), may change how a succession plan is developed or titled, but does

not change the need for it (Klein & Salk, 2013; Rothwell, 2010). There is a constant need to

prepare the next generation of leaders as current leadership plans for long term institutional

health and works to ensure the advancement of colleges through unprecedented change (Austin,

2015). There are already studies available about the application of succession planning in

private higher education institutions that can be utilized by public two-year colleges for

generalizable findings that include the definition of succession planning, the understanding of

succession planning value and fit in academics, and the development of development practices

for internal potential leaders (Klein & Salk, 2013). As noted by Rich (2006) in the following:

Higher education requires administrators who effectively balance unity and integrate

business and academic priorities; respond creatively to demand for increased market

competitiveness in ways that support long term academic objectives; and connect the

strategies for improvement of institutional infrastructure and fiscal resources with the

requirements for strengthening the ingredients of academic progress. Higher education

cannot import that kind of leadership, the must produce it. (p. 41)

Higher education institutions have long recognized that leadership development and

career management efforts benefit employees and the organization, but increasing heightened

awareness also exists for a more strategic approach and comprehensive effort toward succession

39

planning as a long term strategic initiative (Davies & Davies, 2010; Gaffney, 2005; Keim &

Murray, 2010; Luna, 2010; Middlehurst, 2008; Neefe, 2009). According to a 2000 study by the

Society for Human Resource Management only 32% of organization had any formal succession

plan with respondents noting that poor or mismanaged succession planning led to lack of clear

career development, demoralized employees, inconsistent direction, turnover escalation,

defection of talent, declined competitiveness, bad press, ballooning retention costs (Feeney,

2003). Consequently, Gaffney (2005), generally cited employee retention research and stated

that “employees ten to stay longer where they are experiencing personal and professional

growth.” She went on to state that “career development and succession planning synergy creates

happier, more productive employees (p. 7).” Overall, Gaffney (2005) suggests succession

planning, when implemented as part of business strategy, helps retain talented employees (p. 8),

deliver worth and value (p. 9), better prepares the institution to take on future challenges (p. 9),

increases overall employee engagement and productivity (p. 8), supports new ideas and

innovations (p, 9), and “grows, grooms, and keeps the people they (organizations) need, for what

they need, when they need it.”

This increasing recognition of leadership development and career management has

impacted the pathway to academic administration in higher education. In their 2001 study,

Cejda, McKenney, and Burley found that there is no longer a single progressive job ladder to

positions, but rather that progressive administrative positions and experiences were the key to

preparing leaders for high-level administrative positions. This varies from the more traditional

pathway of faculty member to department chair to dean to CAO, although faculty member

experience is still the most common starting point for administrative positions (Cejda et.al.,

2001). There is also an increasing number of non-traditional career paths into c-suite and

40

linchpin positions, particularly in the two-year college environment, however, the most common

path to the presidency is still a senior administration or c-suite position (Land, 2003; Shults,

2001). This establishes that experience in administrative positions are significant to career path

development and that progressive experiences and responsibilities are critical to preparing future

leaders (Land, 2003). These progressive responsibilities and experiences are part of the

succession planning model as noted by Rothwell (2010) and SHRM (2009) as part of the effort

to assess and appraise individuals and invest in their competency development.

The need for a strategic and systematic approach that invests in strengthening the

leadership pipeline is becoming increasingly evident (Austin, 2015; Boerner, 2015; Berchelman,

2005; Land, 2003). We can attribute this to a myriad of issues from changing workforce

demographics (Rothwell, 2010), steep decline in the number of conferred doctoral degrees to

community and technical college leadership (Keim & Murray, 2008), hiring freezes, financial

constraints, broader and more complex job descriptions (Keim & Murray, 2008), and increased

work-loads and stress levels in these positions (Davies & Davies, 2010). Without intervention,

the result of this changing demographics is fewer people prepared for or motivated to take on key

leadership positions within institutions. As the conditions of the leadership pipeline are further

examined in the following section, the case for succession planning in higher education as a

strategic approach to meeting these challenges and preparing its people will be critical.

Higher education leadership conditions. As leadership failures, particularly at the top

level of administration, gain media attention, there is an increasing demands for succession

planning from boards, accrediting agencies, state and federal government, and creditors (Manger,

2009). Several factors are contributing to the changes in the college pipeline. From

demographic factors and competition to changing job requirements and political climates, all are

41

combining to create a growing concern over the lack of prepared applicants for linchpin and c-

suite positions in higher education (Evelyn, 2001; Land, 2003; Rothwell, 2010; Shults, 2001).

Each of these conditions are outlined below to create the case for succession planning in higher

education.

Forces in the pipeline. Several internal and external forces significantly influence the

need for succession planning within higher education institutions while simultaneously

impacting their ability to engage in succession planning activities. These include demographic

trends, competitive forces, job requirements, lack of preparation, the complexity of defining

competencies, the changing political climate, and the institutions own bureaucracy

Demographic trends. The demographic trends of administrators and faculty related to

age, gender, race, ethnicity, and experience further demonstrate the need to examine how

colleges are approaching leadership planning. In community colleges, the workforce is aging.

With 47% of the workforce over 50 (Boerner, 2015), average c-suite age of 54 (Boggs, 2003),

average presidential age of 61 (AACC, 2012), and a wave of retirements at the c-suite and

presidential level (75% plan to retire within 10 years) (Tekle, 2012), turnover is eminent.

Turnovers within these positions create challenges and opportunities. The challenge lies in

finding applicants and qualified candidates while the opportunity to hire new leaders expands the

vision of the college to fit the current and future needs of community college (Shults, 2001).

In its 2012 report “The American College President,” the American Council on

Education examined key demographics related to race, ethnicity, gender, age, career history, and

time in position for presidents of higher education institutions. Several findings in the report

confirm the changing picture in higher education since 2006 including: an increase in the average

age of college presidents to 61; a 7% increase of presidents whose prior position was outside

42

higher education; a decline of one-and-a-half years in average time of the tenure of presidents; a

1% decline in the number of minority presidents; and a 3.4% increase in the number of women

presidents (ACE, 2012). This data further demonstrates the shift in demographics at the highest

level of leadership in college and universities, however, when compared to 25 years ago when

the ACE began it study the overall profile of a college president hasn’t changed much (Cook &

Kim, 2012). For example, as the student body ethnically and racially diversifies, from 20% in

1990 to 34% in 2009, the racial makeup of college presidents has increased from 8% to 13%

between 1986 and 2011 (Cook & Kim, 2012). Of note, gender diversification has increased

since the first ACE study in 1986. There has been a 16% increase in female leadership, the

highest percent found at colleges, however, since the last published study by ACE there has

actually been a decrease in the number of women presidents (ACE, 2012). This lack of

diversification within the higher education administrative ranks can also be tied to the career

pathways to these positions, which have also remained relatively unchanged.

Although much research has focused on the college presidency and its successors, it is

important to note that the most likely successors to all c-suite positions are reflecting these same

conditions. The aging of key c-suite positions most likely to be in line to succeed college

presidents indicate the need for stronger succession planning strategies in linchpin positions in

other levels of administration (Keim & Murray, 2008). Studies referenced in the articles utilized

for this review indicate that the pool of potential replacements for these c-suite positions is even

smaller than those for college presidencies (Davies & Davies, 2010; Keim & Murray, 2008;

Rothwell, 2010).

The AACC, 2012, provides the most current picture of college employee demographics.

By examining the distribution at other levels we build a more comprehensive picture of who is in

43

the pipeline. CEO’s are 72% male, 81% white, 62% over 55, and 99% have an advanced degree.

In comparison, at the administrative level (including c-suite positions), 53% are female and 80%

are white, at the middle management level, 51% are female and 83% are white, and at the

professional staff level 64% are female and 75% are white. Contrast this to the enrolled

population at community colleges which is 60% female and 52% white (AACC, 2012). Because

the middle management positions are most likely to succeed to c-suite positions, and c-suites

positions to the presidency, what can be deduced from this data is that there is an increased

discrepancy in representation within the career ladder of colleges as compared to the student

population at community colleges (Cook & Kim, 2012; Harlety, Eckel, & King, 2009).

Competitive forces. The mass exodus of community college leadership due to retirement

and turnover is an opportunity to build capacity for the future by supporting, nurturing, and

encouraging talent, but is also a challenge (Calkins & Millsings, 2005; Hartley, Eckel & King,

2009). The competition for qualified candidates in key linchpin and c-suite positions is

increasing. Competitive forces from the private sector, universities with higher salaries and

incentives, and elementary and secondary schools with programs like loan forgiveness make it

difficult to attract talent into colleges because of the greater rewards offered elsewhere (Evelyn,

2001; Rothwell, 2010). As leaders develop their skills, abilities, and talents to manage diversity,

fundraise, manage fiscal resources and information technology, and conduct effective strategic

planning they become ideal candidates for positions within and outside of higher education

(Evelyn, 2001). This increase in demand and competitiveness for top candidates in at the highest

level of college administration creates an increased pressure on the pipeline for succession,

making planning and developing internal candidates for these positions even more important

(Evelyn, 2001; Rothwell, 2010).

44

Job requirements. It is not only competitive forces that are impacting the pipeline, but

also the lack of interest in moving into administrative positions from faculty and other

professional positions within higher education (Land, 2003). Job requirements have become less

inviting and idealistic as potential applicants see the long hours, lack of balance, and increasing

demands in these positions (Evelyn, 2001). Less than 30% of CAO’s aspire to be presidents for

these same reasons (Land, 2003). Senior administrative positions like the CAO and CSAO were

traditionally internally focused but now job responsibilities have expanded well beyond

academic and student affairs programming and into IT, HR, assessment, and accountability

measures (Land, 2003). Even presidents feel unprepared to deal with the changing aspects of

their positions which now include more fundraising, accountability measures, budgeting, and

work with boards, local, state, and federal legislatures (Shults, 2001). Incoming c-suite

administrators and presidents report feeling underprepared for the high intensity of relationship

building tasks, politics, and overwhelming nature of the positions they are in (Shults, 2001).

The pressures of these requirements in higher education leadership have become more evident to

those in the pipeline as well, decreasing the desire to move up to higher level positions (Land,

2003)

Lack of preparation. Lack of preparation to meet the job requirements as noted above for

high level leadership positions leaves institutions in a tenuous position during turnover.

Research since the mid 1990’s has projected the high turnover among senior administration and

the mass exodus of community college leadership while urging an increase in professional

development programs specifically related to community colleges (Betts et al, 2009; Calkins and

Millings, 2005; Land, 2003; Shults, 2001). Wolverton, Ackerman & Holt (2005) ascertain that

higher education institutions pay little attention to preparing their leaders or to succession and

45

that this lack of mid-level leadership preparedness impacts effectiveness and the ability of

individuals in them to assume future and higher level administrative positions. As established,

the progressive experience within these positions is critical to the career path development of

leadership (Land, 2003) but institutions prefer older leaders with proven track records in similar

positions which works against the pipeline of younger applicants, women, and minorities (Cook,

2012). The lack of a defined career ladder or a path to move through the ranks in academic or

student affairs means institutions must find ways to internally and externally prepare leaders for

succession (Land, 2003).

What might that look like? From the inside it can mean mentoring programs that

promote transition of knowledge and skills, stretch assignments to broaden a portfolio of

experience, conducting risk analysis of positions and assessing internal competencies, and hiring

practices that promote inclusion and diversity of experience while building complimentive

strength based teams (Borden, 2010; Klein and Salk, 2013; Land, 2003). Externally, the focus of

preparedness turns to professional associations and higher education providers and universities to

provide opportunities (Land, 2003). For example, the AACC (2005, 2013) has taken an active

role in compiling a leadership program database, designing training and development

opportunities, building a web based registry, and conducting awareness campaigns about

opportunities for its membership.

It also requires a critical review of the lack of formal preparation for community college

leadership positions. The shortage of doctoral programs, fellowships, and certificate programs to

develop leaders in community college administration is evidenced by a 78% decrease in degree

conferred with this emphasis during a time of increase in degrees conferred in higher education

administration (Evelyn, 2001). Community colleges rely on these programs to prepare their

46

leaders but seem to exert little influence or control over how and if this happens (Evelyn, 2001).

There are several states, including Minnesota, that do not offer graduate or doctoral programs

related to community college leadership and administration (The Council for the Study of

Community Colleges, 2015). Doctoral programs must determine if their focus is to prepare

leaders for positions in higher education administration or researchers. Both are important as

research based programs contribute to the collective knowledge and understanding of higher

education leadership and experiential programs develop practitioners with experiences that

prepare them for administrative positions (AACC, 2013).

This lack of leadership preparedness plays a pivotal role in succession planning within

community colleges. Sinady, Floyd, and Mulder (2010) reviewed the leadership competencies

identified by the American Association of Community Colleges (2005). The study examined the

effectiveness of doctoral programs in preparing for college leadership. Leadership competencies

were developed in a three-year study and included organizational strategy, resource

management, communication, collaboration, advocacy, and professionalism (AACC, 2005).

Sinady, Floyd, and Mulder (2010) found that the doctoral programs that embed the AACC

competencies into their programs increased the likelihood of producing effective community

college leaders. These competencies are not only used in the recruitment of students to

programs, but also in the interview process and screening of leaders by hiring committees at

community colleges (Sinady et al., 2010). The development of these competencies through

theory and application-based curriculum builds talent and generates opportunities for

development in targeted areas critical to leadership success in higher education environments

(Sinady et al., 2010).

47

Similarly, in 2009 Romano, Townsend, and Mamiseishvili studied doctoral student’s

perspectives of these same competencies. The authors found that the development of these

competencies within a program had significant influence on student’s perception of their ability

and preparedness to successfully take on leadership positions in higher education. Neefe (2009)

also found the identification and communication of competencies supported the intentional and

transparent efforts of organizations in professional development planning.

Competency complexities. The utilization of traits and skills, also called competencies, to

define leadership abilities and identify high potential leaders is becoming increasingly common

in higher education. But, as noted by Eddy and VanDerLinden (2006), the meaning of

leadership in higher education is being redefined by those in positions of leadership who use

alternative language or emerging definitions of leadership. This new definition includes

reference to terms like team, servant, and transformative leadership and characteristics such as

shared decision making, creativity, quality improvement, strong personal value systems, and

vision (Eddy & VanDerLinden, 2006).

As noted in the business case for succession planning earlier in this literature review,

industry has utilized both theory and professional practice to define leadership competencies. To

add further complexity, higher education uses its unique institutional approach to further

defining leadership competencies. Middlehurst (2008) acknowledges that not enough is known

about exactly what makes a leader effective or ineffective in the higher education context.

However, because leadership theory and practice are tied to historical and cultural context,

framed by methodological approaches, and influenced by the socio-economic environment, the

relationship between desired leadership practices in higher education and principles of general

leadership theory are not that distant (Middlehurst, 2008). It is important to utilize this research

48

and application from industry as a basis for development of competency development in higher

education, one that combines leadership theory and practice with higher education mission and

principles, to create a more holistic approach to preparing community college leaders.

To expand the competency conversation into higher education, specifically the

community college environment, The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC),

whose mission is firmly rooted in the development and continual improvement of community

college leadership, has led the way (AACC, 2005; AACC, 2013). Through an extensive research

process over a year and half (November 2003-April 2005), funded by the W.K. Kellogg

Foundation, the AACC developed a list of competencies for community college leaders that has

become the foundation of leadership competency definition in U.S. community college

education. Initially the AACC included definitions and illustrations of six areas of competency

which included organization strategy, resource management, communication, collaboration,

advocacy, and professionalism (AACC, 2005). These competencies are firmly rooted in the

AACC principles that 1.) Leadership can be learned, 2.) Many members at many levels of the

community college community can lead, 3.) Effective leadership is a combination of effective

management and vision, 4.) Learning leadership is a life-long process, and 5.) The leadership gap

can be addressed with a variety of strategies and delivery methods that incorporate the

competencies (AACC, 2005).

In 2013, the AACC conducted additional research and modified some of the language

around the competencies to further define the characteristics for executive positions at three

different levels – emerging leaders, new leaders (less than 3 years), and mature leaders (in

positions greater than 3 years). The premise of the additional research and recommendations

specific to the CEO level was that many of the same skills required for emerging leaders were

49

required, however, if CEO’s were expected to meet an increasing number of accountability

measures, their ability to master additional qualities was imperative to their ability to contribute

to institutional transformation (AACC, 2013). The modified competencies include:

organizational strategy; institutional finance, research, fundraising, and resource management;

communication; collaboration; and community college advocacy (AACC, 2013). When

compared, these competencies are evolutionary from those defined in 2005 and focus on

progressive development within a leadership continuum (AACC, 2013).

The reader can draw conclusions about the similarities and differences between the

identified competencies in business versus those in higher education. A chart to visually depict

the competencies referred to throughout this literature review is available in Appendix A. In

higher education, there are a variety of roles and paths to leadership and the competencies and

skills needed will shift based on position. The changing nature and complexity of positions in

higher education highlights the increased need for diversity of experience and skills outside the

traditional path (Land, 2003). Developing individuals with the experience and skills needed in

this emerging community college landscape within higher education will require ongoing,

evolutionary, and long-term engagement and investment (Land, 2003). It is also critical for

universities and community colleges to study these competency based models carefully as they

examine their role in preparing future higher education leaders.

Changing political climates and institutional bureaucracy. It is hard to ignore the

changing political climate and priorities that impact higher education. The political priority of

higher education at the regional, state, and national level is in decline as evidenced by decreases

in funding, increases in the costs of operation, increased demands to control tuition and fees,

increased inquiry from media and public, more accountability measures and unfunded mandates

50

from boards and legislatures, demand for new technologies and equipment, and escalating

competition (Boggs, 2003; Rich, 2006; Robken, 2007). As noted in the job requirements section

of this review, this impacts and changes the work of leaders to focus on competitive strategies,

marketing, accountability measures, building political capital, and raising funds (Rich, 2006).

The overall mission of colleges remains; open access, community responsiveness,

resourcefulness, a clear focus on teaching and learning, and helping the most diverse student

body in the history of higher education succeed (Boggs, 2003, p. 16) but the change in

administrative work and responsibilities leads to contradiction.

Does the new political economy suggest leaders in higher education should view

challenges as business problems that incorporate lessons from the private sector (Rich, 2006)?

Rich (2006), uses the following quote from Bok to add context:

Copying business practices from the private sector and actively engaging in marketing

and selling their products are hardly new. What is changing, however, is the scale of

commercialization and the marketing efforts by a growing number of institutions. Driven

by diverse internal and environmental forces…., the drive for added revenue and market

advantage has become self-reinforcing” (Bok, 2003 p. 14-15).

Land (2003) also noted the need for a similar skill set in college administrative leadership

teams (budgeting, personnel, legal, managerial) to complement the composition of the

management structure, similar to that found in private industry. This contradicts the traditional

path of promotion within higher education that focuses on subject matter knowledge

(demonstrated by degree attainment, research, and publication) and experience (increasing

responsibility and promotion within higher education) (Land, 2003).

51

The roles of formal (position-based) and informal leaders within institutions is shifting

and this shift has led to a separation between those who make the decisions and those served by

them (Rich, 2006). Leadership requires forward thinking and a focus on long-term results, but

with increased turnover, shorter times in positions, and an unprecedented number of retirements

in higher education, the focus of leaders will increasingly tend toward short term gains and

results (Betts et. al. 2009; Rich, 2006; Shults, 2001; Song & Harley, 2012). Increased turnover

reduces capacity. Without individuals who are willing to commit for the long term and initiate

change, there is a bias toward short term results and a reduced willingness to take on the

challenges like funding, structure, relevance, and competition that impact the future direction of

colleges (Rich, 2006; Robken, 2007). This lack of commitment by leadership to a long term

future leaves employees and students feeling anxious and confused about the institutions

priorities, strategies, infrastructure, and resource allocation. (Rich, 2006; Robken, 2007).

The seemingly natural faculty apathy toward administration because of perceived

conflicting philosophies and ways of work, however, the changing and expanding roles of

administrators does not help the situation (Rich, 2006). The freedom, independence, and

autonomy that attracted faculty to the positions they hold isn’t seen in administrative positions

(Rich, 2006). Rather they see it encumbered with external demands, conflict, and organization

change which they are not prepared to manage and don’t want to (Rich, 2006; Wolverton et al.,

2005).

The fear of changing roles from the known to unknown that include difficult and

challenging aspects hold potential candidates back (Land, 2003). Moving from the familiar to

the unfamiliar can cause anxiety and fear – fear of isolation, loneliness, sacrifice, workload, loss

of personal time, conflict, criticism – leading many to believe it is not worth it (Land, 2003).

52

Inadequate searches, both those conducted internally and those done by firms, fail to attract a

balanced pool of internal and external candidates (Klein & Salk, 2013). This reliance on search

firms for c-suite and presidential positions is rooted in the need to mirror faculty search

processes, the perception that internal candidates may not be able to make changes, a boards

perception of insider loyalty or the inability to make personnel decisions, the inclusiveness of

stakeholders with dissimilar objectives, and the prestige associated with bring in someone from

the outside (Lapovsky, 2012; Carey, Ogden & Roland, 2000; Klein & Salk, 2013). In such

instances, internal candidates may have a more difficult time in the search process because their

weaknesses are known, there is a higher standard of hiring in a national search, or there is not an

organizational culture that supports hiring from within (Carey, Ogden & Roland, 2000; Klein &

Salk, 2013). This is contrary to corporate succession planning, where organizations frequently

look internally to fill high level positions (Carey, Ogden, & Roland, 2000). Noted in its 2014

publication on recruitment strategies for new leaders, Witt/Keiffer presented multiple

perspectives from several authors which summarized hiring nontraditional candidates (those

from outside higher education), comparing academic leaders to corporate executives, the

influence of institutional fit, and the impact of search committees on leadership selection. In this

Witt/Keiffer publication (2014) Lucy Leske noted that in higher education internal succession

was a new concept but that hiring or appointing internal candidates is a viable model leadership

position if the candidate has demonstrated leadership within the organization (p. 30-31). Little

research has been done on why higher education seems to prejudice internal hiring, however, the

growing concern around the lack of well-prepared applicants and decrease in the number of

qualified applications for two-year college positions leadership positions leads one to question

53

why higher education pays such little attention to succession planning (Evelyn, 2001; Wolverton

et. al., 2005).

Unique mission of two-year colleges. Managing talent through succession planning can

be more difficult in higher education because institutional missions differ from those of business

and industry, particularly those of public colleges and universities (Richards, 2009). The general

focus of public higher education missions is on serving students, communities, employers,

legislators, and the general public and the community college mission is even more focused

(Richards, 2009). Community and technical colleges within the United States are founded in the

core values of open access, community responsiveness, resourcefulness, a clear focus on

teaching and learning, and enroll the most diverse student body in the history of higher education

(Boggs, 2003, p. 16).

The unique mission and accountability structure of public higher education institutions

particularly that of community colleges, leads to constraints and restrictions not faced by private

and for-profit institutions. Examples include mandatory affirmative action plans; fixed employee

hiring, discipline and promotion procedures; union contract regulations including claiming

rights, tenure, and seniority; specific credentialing procedures and employment qualifications;

complex funding models; and local or state politics (AACC, 2005; Cook & Kim, 2012; Hockady

& Puyear, 2014). Higher education, specifically public higher education, also has a unique

culture that incorporates the principles of involvement, development, and shared governance

(Borden, 2010; Davis, 2008; Richards, 2009). Involvement refers to the participation and

connection of the institution to key internal and external constituents which include institution

employees, students, communities, legislators, advisory boards, systems, and other constituents

impacted by the operations of the college (Davis, 2008). Development refers to the role of

54

professional development in higher education to prepare, train, and provide experiences for its

employees that enrich their professional lives and connects to the mission and values of the

college (Davis, 2008; Richards, 2009). Using the American Federation of Teachers Higher

Education Program and Policy Council’s (2002) language, shared governance refers to “the set

of practices under which college faculty and staff participate in significant decisions concerning

the operation of their institutions.” This definition inherently includes the engagement of all

parties in the shared responsibility of what is best for the institution and is built on the values of

transparency, accountability and ongoing communication (Davis, 2008).

The inclusive nature of the collegial culture includes consultation and collaboration

where all stakeholders have a voice (Klein & Salk, 2013; Richards, 2009). These cultural

components distinguish higher education from corporate America as they require that institutions

examine and address how succession planning efforts involve and engage these stakeholder in

the succession planning process (Klein & Salk, 2013; Richards, 2009). This raises the question

of whether it is possible to align succession planning strategies and best practices in the

employee selection, development, and promotion process with the culture and traditions of

public higher education (Richards, 2009). A previous doctoral study in 2009 by Neefe indicates

the answer is yes. Neefe cites the efforts of Daytona Beach Community College (p. 25),

Maricopa Community College District (p. 27), a Canadian technical institute (p. 36-37) and

efforts at several Ivy-Plus Universities (p. 40-41) as a strategic example of succession planning

to foster a systematic approach to identify and fill employee knowledge gaps and proactively

identify and cultivate future leaders. Establishing a culture that serves the institution and enables

it to thrive while creating a community of employees who care about the future of the institution,

each other, and students even after they are gone means developing people who are prepared to

55

move in to new positions and responsibilities (Pierce, 2015). Succession planning requires that

intentional building of culture that aligns with institutional values and vision and is reflected in

practice and planning (Neefe, 2009; Pierce, 2015). There are not a limitless number of published

examples in higher education of successful succession planning, however, the need is established

and adaptations and adoption are possible if leadership development and succession planning are

prioritized (Gaffney, 2005; Neefe, 2009; Rhodes & Brundrett, 2009; Rothwell, 2002).

Leadership development – A critical element of succession planning. Leadership

development and succession planning are not new concepts but their application in higher education

institutions is (Davies & Davies, 2010). The idea of building talent to meet current and future workforce

demands in organizations seems like a natural, common-sense, practice. The issue is not with the

recognition of need or the realization that these practices lead to better prepared, productive, and more

effective leaders, but with the actual use and formalization of these practices at higher education

institutions or within systems (Davies & Davies, 2010; Feeney, 2003). Leadership development and

succession planning are not mutually exclusive terms but rather inclusive. The role of leadership

development in in higher education and the research surrounding its use has increased and shifted from a

trait and individualized process to one that is more collaborative, shared, and collective (Kezar, 2009).

This ability to focus on the institutions long term health increases the need for colleges to think about

vertical growth and horizontal position with a constant emphasis on developing the next generation of

leaders (Austin, 2015).

Preparing leaders through development is a key component of succession planning.

Leadership development is included in both the SHRM (2009) and Rothwell (2010) models of

succession planning as a key step. SHRM (2009) utilizes leadership development in the ‘boost

morale and retention by investing in employees’ step, and Rothwell (2010) describes leadership

development activities in the ‘close the gap’ step. The importance of internal and external

56

leadership programs is demonstrated in the need to produce a pipeline of viable candidates for

positions (Boerner, 2015). The pipeline of successors in higher education is built within these

steps of the model through professional development activities. These activities include

specialized external leadership programs (W.K. Kellogg Leadership Program, League for

Innovation Executive Leadership Program, or the Higher Education Management Institute at

Harvard), administrative internships and fellowships, mentoring relationships, and internal or

college/campus based grow your own development programs (AACC, 2002; Runestad, 2014).

Because internal hiring and promotion continues to be the most common path to

community college administrative (c-suite and presidential) appointments, the ability to

understand and develop the internal labor pool within an institution is critical (AACC, 2002).

This also means a more operational focus on leadership development at lower levels of

management to develop clearer paths to leadership for faculty and staff, thus increasing the talent

pool in the future (Davies, 2008). However smaller colleges must realize their efforts may actual

be training future leaders for opportunities outside their own institution as the demand and

competition increases for qualified leadership (AACC, 2002; Austin, 2015).

The internal, operational focus is also critical as it is part of ensuring successful

transitions and college operations during turnover. This starts with preparing leaders from the

middle (Ebbers et al., 2010). To fill these vacancies, “grow your own leaders” programs have

become increasingly popular at the state level (Ebbers et al., 2010). These programs for middle

and upper level managers require strong staff development resources to fill the pipeline for

positions. Ebbers, Conover, and Samuels (2010) recommend a stepping stone approach that

includes assessment of individuals, personal planning, credential attainment, and learning from

successful, experienced leaders. Methods to accomplish this include: personal assessments and

57

inventories on personal and leadership; review of identified leadership competencies and how

individuals align with personal and professional characteristics; personal development plans that

includes goals, timelines, and professional development activities; attainment of appropriate

credentials based on the goals of the individuals and the requirements of the positions they seek;

and mentoring, coaching and networking for other professional relationships that provide

opportunities to learn, develop, and practice the skills necessary to succeed in positions (Ebbers

et al., 2010).

Institutions that focus on leadership development can take the leap to succession planning

by recognizing these current efforts and asking themselves how they can incorporate the current

efforts and activities into a larger succession planning strategy. There is much research and

information available on leadership develop programs, however the measurement to establish

results and the return on investment remains more elusive (Runestad, 2014). In his 2014 study,

Runestad summarized the efforts of community colleges in leadership development programs

and activities noting that this was the most robust area of research in higher education but also

not rigorously assessed. Klein and Salk (2013) note that research on the business or corporate

based succession planning return on investment is more readily available, but not holistically

applicable to higher education. This lack of systematic processes and evaluation, an integral part

of succession planning as noted in the SHRM (2009) and Rothwell (2010) frameworks, can be

attributed to several factors: a general gap of understanding; an entrenched traditional view of

succession planning; a lack of planning; an unwillingness to let go of historic practices or revisit

processes, beliefs and assumptions; anxiety; and/or a lack of awareness of the coming leadership

crisis (Klein and Salk, 2013). This lack of research and the factors just described has led to an

emerging body of work on succession planning efforts as described in the next section.

58

A summary of recent studies of succession planning in higher education. A thorough

search of existing research on succession planning in the two year college environment had

limited findings. This small body of research was informed primarily by broader topics of

research on leadership development, succession planning in industry, succession planning for

specific positions or with specific populations, or efforts in four year universities (Neefe, 2009;

Richards, 2012). Four dissertations, as outlined below, were used to inform this literature review

and guide the researcher’s efforts. They include a combination of qualitative and quantitative

studies conducted in different geographic regions over the past ten years.

Succession planning in a two-year technical college system. This quantitative study

conducted by Neefe (2009), examined the relationship between succession planning and

leadership development efforts when included in strategic planning to the hiring patterns within

academic administration at the sixteen technical colleges within the Wisconsin Technical

College System. Neefe’s (2009) survey instrument was designed around three indices; strategic

planning, succession planning, and leadership development and grouped into six sections with

supporting questions on strategic planning, succession planning, career management, personal

leadership preparation, strategic and succession planning links, and demographics. Analysis of

the data showed a strong positive correlation between colleges with a mature strategic planning

process and those with a more mature succession planning process, recognized common

elements of succession planning used by the colleges in the study, identified leadership

development strategies used by the colleges to develop academic leaders, and explored career

progression pathways in academic leadership (p. 171-172). Notable findings of the study

include: difference in career development activities and access by gender and geographic region;

increased effectiveness of succession planning in medium versus small and large colleges; an

59

untapped pool of aspirational leaders that has yet to be accessed; inconsistent value placed by

participants on learning experiences at different career stages; and an increasing percentage of

leaders who follow a non-traditional career path to academic leadership (Neefe, 2009).

Generalizable implications regarding the importance of alignment of strategic planning with

organizational processes and the need to utilize existing processes to develop, support, and

articulate the importance of succession planning were balanced with implications specific to the

Wisconsin Technical College System (Neefe, 2009). Suggestions for future research,

specifically the need to examine tools and strategies being used in two year colleges to identify

academic leaders led to this researchers study.

A new paradigm: Strategies for succession planning in higher education. This

qualitative study explored the influence of governance structure and academic culture on

succession planning at six institutions (public, private, 2 year and 4 year) across the U.S. using

unstructured interviews with presidents and senior executives (Richards, 2009). Data collection

sought to identify whether formal succession planning was being utilized and how it was being

approached, what impact governance structure had on succession planning decisions, and how

the institutional culture impacted methods or strategies of succession planning (Richards, 2009).

Richards (2009) identified the following emergent themes within her study:

- Succession planning practices exist at each institution of the study but the formalness of

those plans varied greatly. Efforts around leadership development activities were

prevalent however these were not tied to succession planning models, strategies, or

policies.

- Governance structure and type appears to influence the extent to which succession

planning strategies were utilized. The type of college, presence of governing boards, and

60

the role of stakeholders all impacted individual responses yet all indicated that decisions

around leadership development were presidential and/or board responsibilities. Findings

indicated private institutions with corporate influence were more likely to engage in

formal succession planning activities.

- Because academic culture is so unique, Richards (2009) attempted to understand its

impact on an institutions ability to incorporate succession planning. All institutions

indicated that collaboration and inclusiveness were a large part of decision making but

the executive team were the primary decision makers (p. 85). Participants supported the

concept of succession planning but found formal succession planning challenging to

implement in the academic environment. Executive commitment, high level champions,

strategic human resources, tactical planning, strategic communication, and perception of

limits for faculty in succession planning were all identified as challenges to succession

planning in the academic environment.

Richards (2009) also summarized additional strategies and recommendations for

institutions embarking on succession planning to improve success within institutions and

suggested similar exploration of other components of succession planning such as competencies,

leader identification, and evaluation and assessment of succession planning efforts. This study

impacted this researcher’s current study by identifying a continued research gap and providing a

qualitative methodology to reference.

Community college succession planning: Preparing the next generation of women

leadership roles. In 2010 Luzbetak published this mixed method study to identify strategies of

succession planning for use with middle-level management in community colleges. The study,

focused on women in rural Illinois community colleges and their ability to develop

61

professionally for leadership roles, specifically examined the effective planning strategies to

prepare women for advancement, the variables impacting underrepresented populations for

inclusion in succession planning, and the impact of the shared governance structure on

succession planning (Luzbetak, 2010). The quantitative findings found disagreement between

male and female respondents on the availability and equity of access to leadership development

opportunities provided through purposeful succession planning efforts (Luzbetak, 2010). Four

senior level administrators from the same sample were also interviewed about the challenges and

potential obstacles to succession planning that led to emerging themes such as: need for fully

developed planning process, Board of Trustee involvement and approval, internal and external

stakeholder engagement and support (including unions), financial implications and impact,

competition for talent, depth and breadth of skillset and the isolation that exists in high level

leadership positions specific to rural college environments (Luzbetak, 2010). Strategies and

techniques like mentoring, collaboration between institutions to support succession planning,

talent recruitment and retention, internal career paths, grooming, and the diversification of the

leadership pool were unique to each participant and had varying degree of disparity in regard to

use, application, and impact (Luzbetak, 2010). The differing perspectives among participants in

Luzbetak’s (2010) study led to a series of recommendations (generalizable) on high level

leadership involvement, systemic and deliberate practices, succession planning as part of the

college’s other major planning documents, and addressing the cultural components (included

shared governance) on the institution. Luzbetak (2010) also provided specific recommendations

for rural community colleges that include developing and institutional philosophy, articulating

how and why the purposeful development of future leaders is critical, and developing an

operational definition of succession planning (p. 142).

62

Future research gaps identified by Luzbetak (2010, p. 163) on career mobility, varied

demographics within a similar study, the specific impact of the board of trustees, and the

implications of developing transparent institutional succession plans informed this researcher of

new areas of exploration. Several aspects of this study increased its relevance to this research

including the involvement of rural colleges, the mixed method research approach, and the

political climate and characteristics in the state of Illinois.

Succession planning for community colleges: A study of best practices. Susan

McMaster’s (2012) focused on adapting conceptual models from corporations for community

colleges by connecting the best practice characteristics of succession planning to organizational

structure. The research, primarily a content analysis of literature since 1996, was focused on

characteristics that typify current thinking, implementation of best practices, and whether

organization structure and culture impacted the process of succession or the reverse where

succession planning changed the culture and structure of the organization (McMaster, 2012; p.

109). McMaster’s (2012) conceptual model, built in a plan, implement, and assess cycle, was

constructed to demonstrate the necessary interrelatedness of the components in each phase for

successful implementation (p. 74).

In McMaster’s (2012) summary of findings related to her research questions, she

constructed a list of characteristics reflected in best practice. They include 1.) incorporating

succession planning into overall strategic planning for the college, 2.) hiring potential leaders, 3.)

developing individual professional development plans, 4.) providing leadership education, 5.)

providing leadership opportunities, and 6. ) mentoring (p. 109). In response to how community

colleges can implement these best practices, McMaster (2012) ascertained that many of the key

components of succession planning were already a part of the community college environment

63

because of its mission and thus the adaptation from the business environment to community

college may be more readily accepted.

McMaster’s (2012) research also addressed the whether the organizational structure and

culture of community colleges could adapt to the process of succession planning or if succession

planning was adopted that it could change the structure and culture of the organization (p. 111).

By comparing the community college horizontal, professional bureaucracy to best practices in

succession planning, McMaster (2012) found that certain organizational structures and cultures

within these institutions were more able and likely to adopt succession planning and that by

adopting, the culture and structure of the organization could be modified. The nature of the

professional bureaucracy within higher education encourages autonomy, shared decision-

making, cross-functional teams, and professional development thus they have a built in structure

and culture that supports succession planning (McMaster, 2012, p. 112).

The impact of this dissertation on the research for this study was two-fold. The

thoroughness of the literature review, comprehensive reference materials, and analysis of body of

scholarly literature provided a foundation for the research included as part of this literature

review. Secondly, the recommendations for further research on the wide-spread adoption of

modern succession planning to create a valid sample with long term studies to test the hypothesis

that the adoption of a modern succession plan could change a community college’s

organizational culture and structure impacted the research concept and parameters of this study.

The review of existing and recent research related to succession planning elements within

higher education was critical to understanding the gaps in research and informing the design of

this study. As noted in each study summary, the research questions and methodology varied

64

dramatically, however, the case for succession planning within community colleges emerged

strongly in each.

Succession planning in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System

(MnSCU). MnSCU is a system made up of 24 colleges and 7 universities with 54 campuses in

47 Minnesota communities that annually serves more than 435,000 students (MnSCU, 2015).

The system is governed by a 15 member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor and

confirmed by the Senate (MnSCU, 2015). A chancellor is appointed by the board to provide

academic and operational leadership to the system and each college and university is led by a

president who reports to the system chancellor (MnSCU, 2015). The system office includes

divisions and offices that support its member colleges, universities, and stakeholders and

includes offices in academic and student affairs, advancement, diversity and equity, finance,

general counsel, information technology, internal auditing, public safety and compliance, and

human resources (MnSCU, 2015). The human resource division serves prospective and current

system employees with support, resources, and guidance both directly and through campus chief

human resource officers (MnSCU, 2015).

The Talent Management unit reports to the Human Resource division and is responsible

for workforce planning, recruiting, onboarding, performance management, training and

development, leadership development, and succession planning (MnSCU, 2015). Succession

planning is part of the overall talent management process to build capacity for leadership

positions within the system. This branch of talent management provides expertise on succession

planning for the system and its individual institutions with ongoing research, a succession

planning framework supported by tools and techniques, and a pilot program (MnSCU, 2015).

65

The succession planning framework adopted by the MnSCU system is adapted from

William R. Rothwell’s 2005 book “Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership

Continuity and Building Talent from Within.” This adapted framework (pictured below)

includes seven stages that identify, develop, and promote leaders organizationally and within the

system (About Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, 2011). Each stage includes clear

outcomes, defined value, common question and discussion points to address, and a supporting

package of tools, techniques, and strategies for accomplishing the outcomes of the stage. This

comprehensive toolkit that supports the stages of the framework was created and is supported by

the talent management office and its steering committee.

Figure 1. Succession Planning Framework Utilized by MnSCU. The system adapted from

Rothwell’s (2005) “Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building

Talent from Within” book.

The steps of the modified framework utilized by the MnSCU system is compared to the

steps identified by SHRM (2009) and Rothwell (2010) in Table 2 to summarize the similarities

66

and differences between the models. The MnSCU framework, tailored to its higher education

environment, includes key components around commitment, competencies, assessment,

development, and evaluation. Consistent across all the models are important components such as

assessing current and future needs, investing in employee development, and document or

tracking efforts. What differs between the three models is that SHRM’s focus on retaining

knowledge (organizational and human) is not articulated in the other two models. The Rothwell

and MnSCU models strongly focus on planning and buy-in and continuous improvement,

elements not as clearly state in the SHRM steps which lack focus on front end planning and

continuous improvement planning.

Table 1

Succession Planning Model Comparisons

SHRM’s defined steps for

effective succession planning

(2009)

Rothwell’s succession

planning model (2010)

MnSCU’s succession

planning framework

(2011)

Adapt to demographic

changes and talent scarcity

Make the commitment Identify purpose, goals,

and objectives

Identify skill gaps and

training needs

Assess present work/people

requirements

Define competencies

Retain institutional

knowledge in a knowledge

economy

Appraise individual

performance

Assess employee

potential and

performance

Boost morale and retention by

investing in employees

Assess future work/people

requirements

Identify candidates

Replace unique or highly

specialized competencies.

Assess future individual

potential

Accelerate development

Close the developmental gap Build system support

Evaluate the succession

planning program

Evaluate succession

program

The Human Resource division, specifically its Talent Management office, was created in

an effort to prepare the system and its colleges and universities for its own version of the

leadership crisis. The MnSCU Board of Trustees and previous system Chancellor first identified

67

succession planning as a priority in 2008. In 2012 and 2014, the current system Chancellor also

noted the importance of managing this turnover in his biannual work plan. Since 2011, the

turnover of 21 of 31 college and university presidents has increased the priority of succession

planning within the system (MnSCU, 2015). This priority is currently reflected in the system

level human resources and talent management strategic plans with required reporting on efforts

and their significance to the Board of Trustees at their request. This current and anticipated

turnover directly demonstrate the significance of preparing a qualified talent pool, supporting the

purpose of this study.

Managing talent for successful succession. Facing its own version of the leadership

crisis, human resources at the system office commissioned a study in 2010 to test assumptions

within it colleges and universities and provide data to help inform the Talent Management office

of the short and long-term significance of succession planning efforts within its colleges and

universities. The purpose behind the study was to create baseline of information to improve

current efforts and design new programs and support mechanisms to help institutions prepare for

turnover in key positions while maintaining successful operations and maximizing the strengths

of employees (MnSCU, 2010). This study, conducted by a team of identified college and

university leaders in the Luoma Leadership Academy (2010), included quantitative questions

with room for comment and was emailed to all divisional MnSCU list-serves (exact number sent

is not known) in the spring of 2010. Results included responses from 145 participants

representing 41 of the 54 campuses in the system and produced several key findings to support

the continued research of succession planning within MnSCU system. Below is a short summary

of the findings produced by the team (MnSCU, 2010):

68

- Positions identified as linchpin within the MnSCU system expanded from presidents, and

c-suite to include additional positions such as academic deans, human resource directors,

registrars and financial aid directors.

- Review of demographic data confirmed the aging of people in these positions (85% of

presidents and 60% of CAO’s are 56 or older).

- Ninety five percent of respondents indicated that there were significant consequences and

disruption to operations when the identified linchpin positions were vacant.

- Literature review and survey responses support the relevance of the current leadership

competencies adopted by MnSCU and identified additional key competencies for the

system to consider supporting.

This survey, along with the identified system goals approved by the board, brought the

issue of succession planning to an increased level of importance for colleges and universities

within the system causing all to question how the success of succession planning would

influence their hiring, retention, and leadership competencies tied to performance. This survey

also produced information on what elements of succession planning campuses were using, how

and if succession planning was tied to institutional strategic planning and performance

management, and ideas of how the system could collaborate to create the initiatives needed to

prepare for the challenges of succession. This same study also re-examined the existing

leadership competencies adopted by MnSCU in 2005.

MnSCU leadership competencies. In 2005, MnSCU adopted a list of 11 leadership

competencies in four categories deemed crucial to incumbents in key leadership positions in the

system. MnSCU (2012) defines a competency as the skills, knowledge, personal characteristics,

and/or behaviors needed to effectively perform a role in an organization. The literature review

69

and data collected through a MnSCU system survey, focus groups, and interviews conducted by

Team Six of the Luoma Leadership Academy in 2010 helped validate the competencies initially

identified in 2005, expanded competency definitions, and supported re-approval of the system

competencies in 2012. This further solidified their importance in professional development

efforts and performance evaluation throughout the system (MnSCU, 2012). The purpose of

these competencies is to help develop curriculum for campus and system leadership development

programs, assist in effective hiring decisions, set performance expectations, provide benchmarks

for employee evaluation, and guide succession planning efforts (MnSCU, 2012).

The competencies are divided into four categories; leader of self, leader as relationship

builder, leader as manager, and leader as innovator. Each category is divided into several

subcategories that include defined characteristics that comprise the behaviors, qualities, and

skills indicative of the subcategory (MnSCU, 2012). A summary of the categories and

subcategories can be found in the last column of Appendix A.

Appendix A summarizes the industry, theory, and higher education competencies as

examined throughout this literature review. The language of the descriptive competencies,

behaviors, and practices has significant overlap between those used in industry, leadership

development theory, higher education, and MnSCU. The first column, specific to industry,

highlights the competencies from SHRM (2009). The next three columns highlight the

competencies (practices, behaviors, or traits) from the highlighted leadership development

theories or models outlined earlier in this literature review. The fifth column highlights the

AACC competencies (2013) which are specific to the higher education and the community

college environment. Finally, the last column outlines the competencies utilized by MnSCU

(2012).

70

Unique to the MnSCU competencies is their inclusion of functional, job specific

competencies deemed critical for successful contributions in multiple jobs on campuses and in

the system (MnSCU, 2012). This feature helps to define and clarify what the system values,

desires in its employees, and helps to build capacity for future growth (MnSCU, 2012). To

ensure use and application, definitions of leadership competencies in the MnSCU system are

continually communicated to system and college administration who are charged with measuring

and evaluating these competencies as part of performance review and professional development

planning processes (MnSCU, 2012). These competencies are also utilized to set individual goals

and provide feedback to employees for use in informed decisions about future development

strategies.

Leadership development to build talent in MnSCU. MnSCU is committed to growing

its own leaders while continuing to attract talent from diverse pools. To support this effort

strong recruitment strategies, training and development programs and resources, and ongoing

leadership development opportunities are employed and maintained by the system office and

campuses (MnSCU, 2015).

Leadership development programs are a core component of the succession planning

framework adopted by MnSCU. Specifically, step 5 of the MnSCU succession plan framework

focuses on accelerated development plans for individuals (MnSCU, 2015). This step is informed

by steps 3 and 4 of the framework as employee performance and potential is examined and

assessed to identify and prepare the individual for development (MnSCU, 2015). To support this

growth and development, MNSCU has two programs specifically designed to nurture internal

talent.

71

The Luoma Leadership Academy Program is an 18 month program supported by the

MNSCU system and the Academy for Leadership and Development in Mesa, Arizona (MnSCU

2015). The program focuses on leadership at all levels and is designed to provide the leadership

theories, practices, and skills needed to support current and future leaders in their departments

and colleges/universities more effectively (MnSCU, 2015). Participants are those who aspire to

leadership positions (with focus on the linchpin positions identified in 2010), or who want to

improve their leadership skills and abilities. The program, which began in 2004, is application

based with competitive entry and includes intense in-person training, a practicum experience,

and team based action projects that benefit the system. A list of the action projects (historic –

current) can be found at

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/actionLearningProje

c.html. Currently the program is in session with its eighth cohort and has graduated over 400

individuals.

The MnSCU Executive Leadership Development program is a year-long program

designed specifically to strengthen the executive leadership pipeline within the system by

accelerating the development of high performing/high potential leaders. The MnSCU system

competes nationally for its c-suite and executive level positions and with support of the Board of

Trustees, designed this program to identify internal senior leaders and accelerate their

development to competitively apply for presidencies and c-suite level positions. By utilizing a

70-20-10 model of delivery, the program includes 70% individualized executive stretch

assignments, 20% executive assessment, mentoring, and coaching and 10% seminars, case study,

and networking curriculum. This competitive entry program requires presidential sponsorship, a

rigorous review process, and begins every other fall. The program has graduated 41 participants

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/actionLearningProjec.html

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/actionLearningProjec.html

72

with a 61% promotion rate (higher level position) including 11 presidential appointments and is

currently in session with its third cohort.

The MnSCU system also offers a variety of leadership courses and seminars organized

into topics around leading project teams, supervising people, successful leadership, and

organizational change. Collectively, these programs, seminars, and resources work to strengthen

the leadership pipeline within the system by identifying and developing a pool of diverse

candidates for linchpin positions throughout the system.

Succession planning pilot. In 2013, the Succession Planning subcommittee, a branch of

the larger Talent Management Steering Committee solicited system colleges and universities to

participate in a pilot program to implement the succession planning framework within their

institutions. Supported by the Board of Trustees, and included in the system level human

resources strategic plan, this effort to create a pilot of interested institutions was an initial step

toward meeting a stated goal of 100% participation in succession planning by 2016. In spring of

2013, the subcommittee hosted representatives from institutions interested in participating and

introduced the succession planning framework and toolkit. Initially, one university, one division

of the system office, and six college campuses responded. Services provided to these

participants included resource training, facilitation, and on-going support. A similar meeting

was held in fall 2014 to introduce new colleges and universities to the succession planning

framework and to assist current pilots in continuing their efforts. From 2013 through present,

institutional participation has varied, efforts have been impacted by a variety of internal and

external conditions, and another pilot introduction/reintroduction is scheduled from summer

2016. The system of goal of 100% participation by 2016 will not be reached. This study will

focus on pilot program and attempt to answer its research questions based on this effort.

73

The succession planning effort of the MnSCU system and its 31 colleges and universities

is ongoing as it attempts to undertake and incorporate the strategies, resources, and principles

needed to mitigate the consequences of its own leadership crisis and prepare to build capacity for

current and future leadership talent needs. Pressure to succeed in these efforts comes from a

Board of Trustees who is invested in preparing for leadership turnover, an increasing competitive

national and international market for higher education leadership talent, an increasing number of

internal system and college/university gaps that are impacting operations and service to students,

and the recognized value associated with developing talent collectively rather than competitively

within the system.

Literature Review Synthesis

As reviewed in this chapter, there is a growing body of knowledge related to succession

planning in higher education. The research, application, and growing need have pushed

institutions to examine succession planning as part of their strategic planning processes to

prepare for current and future organizational needs (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Ebbers et al., 2010;

Neefe, 2009).

The body of research utilized within this literature review provides several

recommendations for utilizing succession planning, future areas for research, and summarized

opportunities within higher education that can be used to frame implementation and use. This

summary, including a clear tie to the research study proposed, frames the future of succession

planning for the reader.

The ability to implement succession planning and take advantage of the benefits it

provides relies on communication, commitment, and continuous improvement within an

organizational culture that supports ongoing talent management and all of its components.

74

In a successful succession planning initiative, goals and objectives are continually communicated

and transparent to all involved (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Davies & Davies, 2010; Ebbers et al.

2010; Kessler, 2002; Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2002; Rothwell, 2010). The charter of the

succession planning initiative is communicated through succinct messages and with clear

direction (Rothwell, 2010). Formalized succession plans that include specific objectives,

definitions, procedures, policies, and implementation strategies help organizations communicate

clearly and in an accessible way (Steel, 2006). This includes communication with individuals on

their career paths and up-down and lateral communication about the management of the process

(Rothwell, 2010). With ongoing communication, efforts are transparent and systems are known

to ensure fairness and an environment free of bias, thus decisions and intent are not questioned as

the motive and reasons for decisions are clear (Kotter, 2007; Rothwell, 2010).

In his article on leading change, Kotter (2007) outlines steps to lead successful change

initiatives and the first step calls for communication to create a sense of urgency around the

system or process change. This kind of communication comes from a powerful coalition of

people within the institution, including vocalized support from high-level system administrators

and board members (depending on the structure of the institution), those in key linchpin

positions within the institution, union representatives (as applicable), and system level

committees (Kotter, 2007). This intentional, transparent, and participatory communication

builds support and trust for the process and demonstrates commitment to the succession planning

goals. (Succession planning gaining, 2008).

Commitment to the succession planning process is demonstrated by leadership as they

actively engage in the planning and implementation of succession planning. Top leadership

engagement and support must be evident to ensure that other leaders/managers/supervisors

75

devote the time and effort needed to a plan to become systemic (McMaster, 2012; Neefe, 2009;

Rothwell, 2010). When linked to the institutions strategic plan and human resource plan, the

activities of succession planning are tied to institutional activities with accountability (McMaster,

2012; Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). This integrated process links succession planning to

strategy and demonstrates the impact succession planning can have on the institutions long-term

planning initiatives (Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). As integrated, the tactical elements of the

plan are developed and utilized in ongoing activities such as onboarding, professional

development planning, and employee evaluations (MnSCU, 2012).

Commitment is also demonstrated through clear competency development and career

path structures for employees. Institutions that have taken the time to clearly define

competencies identify the knowledge, skills, and abilities required now and in the future for

leadership roles (Ebbers et al., 2010; MnSCU, 2012; Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2002).

Competencies can be used to keep position descriptions current, identify replacement needs,

design training and develop opportunities, and establish career paths that identify ways for

employees to promote in the organization (Rothwell, 2010). Continued research on the desired

competencies of leaders specific to the institution and the higher education environment is

ongoing and can help determine what competencies are desired and/or necessary for leaders in

specific roles in education environments (SHRM, 2009; Rothwell, 2010; MnSCU, 2012). Using

this research, institutions can better prepare current and future leaders by designing more

effective development opportunities and performance measures as part of succession planning.

Commitment is also reflected in continuous improvement efforts. For a succession

planning efforts to succeed mechanisms for feedback, accountability and evaluation must be

included (McMaster, 2012; Rothwell, 2010). This includes feedback to and from users,

76

monitored progress of those in the development process, evaluation of the policies, processes and

systems, and analysis to make improvements (Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). This refining

process helps ensure the programs and system are updated to reflect current and future

organizational needs as they evolve (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Ebbers et al., 2010; Kleinsorge,

2010; Neefe, 2009).

This continuous improvement philosophy also extends to individuals within the

organization. Consider the impact of the following: staffing strategies that address current and

future needs to help prepare institutions for turnover and minimize downtime during transition

(Gaffney, 2005); identifying potential successors and nurturing internal leaders through a process

that helps on-board employees and promotes a successful transition experience in new positions

(Succession planning gaining, 2008); encouraging growth and development of employees based

on their performance and potential (Steele, 2006); and balancing succession planning with a

commitment to diversity (Succession planning gaining, 2008; Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010).

Collectively, these high impact strategies reflect best practices of succession planning from

business and can be translated into the higher education environment to positively impact

organizational culture and structure (McMaster, 2012).

Commitment to the human resources within the organization is also key to building a

long-term, effective succession plan. The process of assessing individual talents are useful in

development and planning and include methods such as personal assessments and inventories

that target identified competencies, review of identified leadership competencies and how

individuals align, and use of this information to create individual development plans (Conger &

Fulmer, 2003; Davies & Davies, 2010; Rothwell, 2010). Development is based on individual

and institutional goals and continually reassessed to clarify what competencies are needed for the

77

future if the institution is to achieve its strategic objectives (Rothwell, 2010, p.33). Repeatedly

the strategies used in development include mentoring and coaching with experienced leaders and

networking to build professional relationships that provide opportunities to learn, develop, and

practice the skills necessary to succeed in positions (Conger & Fulmer, 2003; Davies & Davies,

2010; Ebbers et al., 2010; Gaffney, 2005; Kotter, 2007; McMaster, 2012; Neefe, 2009).

Kotter (2007) noted that leadership is about coping with change and more change

demands more leadership (p.24). As individuals experience leadership training, accomplish

advancement goals, are rewarded for their efforts, learn from their mistakes, and exemplify the

competencies recognized as important to their institutions, their achievements will act as short-

term wins (Kotter, 2007). Over time, these success stories build within the institution, increasing

credibility for a system that works to build leaders that reflect the competencies, values, and

mission of the institution. All efforts in communication, commitment, and continuous

improvement within a succession plan establish and support a culture within an organization that

increases the intellectual capital of the organization. The intellectual capital, or the value of the

human talent in the institution, is a direct reflection of the investment made in employees

(Rothwell, 2010, p. 22). This investment is reflected in improved recruitment, retention, morale,

engagement, responsiveness, and productivity.

In his article, What Leaders Really Do, Kotter (2007) addresses how an organization can

create a culture of leadership by consistently demonstrating the commitment to develop people

into leaders. Kotter (2007) suggests that managing career patterns is an important way for

organizations to establish people in effective leadership roles. This is done through a series of

career experiences including significant early career challenges where individuals learn to take

risks and experience both success and failure (Kotter, 2007). Additionally they experience an

78

expanded breath of knowledge throughout their career in broad job assignments, and ongoing

relationship development to secure strong informal networks of support (Kotter, 2007).

Higher education leadership development can create a culture of leadership by providing

similar experiences to its potential leaders. For example, interim placements can help an

institution transition through a difficult time and give an interim appointee the opportunity to

further develop their skills and prepare them to complete for promotions or similar positions

long-term (Steele, 2006). Removing obstacles so individuals can take advantage of these types

placement or stretch assignments reflects investment in an employee and involves cooperation

from many departments to be successful (Neefe, 2009). Specifically current efforts in

leadership development focus on enrollment in graduate-level leadership programs, providing

learning experiences for potential leaders (interim roles, temporary job assignments, stretch

goals), and internal or external leadership academy experiences consisting of skills-based

workshops, practicums, and seminars (Neefe, 2009).

Preparing future leaders for our institutions requires significant effort. The results of

these efforts are better prepared, more productive, accomplished leaders who are ready to meet

the challenges of the institutions in which they work. Instead of a worrying about a leadership

crisis, higher education can use succession planning to fill its pipeline with talented, capable

leaders who will serve students for years to come.

Connecting Literature to the Research Questions

The research questions of this study seek to add to the existing body of knowledge by

minimizing gaps within the research, enhancing existing research, and providing new knowledge

and understanding to the audience about the application of succession planning in higher

education. Each question’s purpose is described in the following paragraphs.

79

How have individual institutions utilized succession planning to prepare for or resolve

issues presented by the leadership crisis in higher education? This question will investigate how

individual institutions utilize succession planning to mitigate the consequences of turnover and

draw out specific practices that are employed to prepare for the leadership crisis. The literature

outlines many causes for the leadership crisis, yet only peripherally examines the actual impact

on community colleges. By further exploring how the crisis has impacted specific colleges, the

attempted use of succession planning to resolve these issues can be examined in more detail.

This deeper dive into the issues and their resolutions (or lack thereof) will provide evidence to

further support (or not support) the use of succession planning in colleges.

How do the current efforts of the pilot colleges (supported by the system) prepare

institutions for the leadership crisis? This question seeks to understand how the system pilot

program has influenced the institutions ability to respond to the challenges presented by the

leadership crisis and why institutions decided to engage (or not) in the pilot program. In an

effort to discover which specific strategies and activities add value to the individual institutions

the process and its corresponding outcomes will be examined.

How has the development of a modified and adopted framework for succession planning

been utilized/implemented within the college environment? Using the MnSCU succession

planning framework as a guide, each step will be explored to understand the impact the phase

and corresponding activities have on implementation. Since the Rothwell framework is highly

utilized in business environments, this inquiry will develop a deeper understanding of the

framework as applied in a new environment, higher education. Specifically, by understanding

each institutions strategy for deploying the steps of the framework, the framework will be

qualitatively tested for applicability.

80

What experiences influence a campus’s ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot program and

continue in succession planning efforts over an extended period of time? Through this inquiry,

the researcher will seek to determine what experiences influence a college’s ability to utilize

succession planning in the short and long term. Do the factors of communication, commitment,

continuous improvement, and culture described in the literature review impact progress and

longevity of a strategy? What resource investments most impact sustainability? These shared

experiences will act as lessons learned for other institutions as they decide whether to embark on

the work of succession planning.

Summary

This literature review has examined current research and practice regarding succession

planning from a broad industry perspective to higher education to a specific system. The case

for succession planning was outlined through the lens higher education by examining relevant

leadership theory, a current body of literature, research studies, and models and frameworks that

have significantly impacted the field. Key findings on succession planning were articulated as

were the implications for higher education and the next generation of leaders associated with the

leadership crisis.

The future of succession planning in higher education is largely determined by its current

leadership and those in immediate position to succeed them (Conger & Fulmer, 2003). Current

leaders can take responsibility for creating a corporate culture where people value strong

leadership and strive to create it (Kotter, 2007). Leaders themselves can push for development

opportunities that increase their responsibilities and expand their roles through development

opportunities that increase their competency. Leading the succession planning effort in higher

education will require addressing the change-resistant culture of colleges and universities and the

81

barriers to effective change management, however the culture and structure of community

college, inherent in their mission, does support succession planning (Fullen & Scott, 2009;

McMaster, 2012).

82

Chapter III: Methodology

The purpose of this qualitative study is to capture the experiences of colleges during a

succession planning pilot in a two-year union environment that is part of a large education

system. The research sought to identify the challenges that prevent campuses from succession

planning, tie pipeline issues and their resolution to succession planning practices, and provide

recommendations on how to capitalize on the opportunities presented through succession

planning initiatives in higher education. By investigating the relationship between the use of

succession planning at two-year colleges and the institutions connection to a larger system, the

study will also seek to understand the college and system’s ability to adopt and sustain

succession planning principles. The results of this study will help inform institutions and

systems as they embark on the use of succession planning in preparing for a leadership crisis.

This chapter will provide an overview of the methodology of this study including

research questions, methods, and analysis. It will detail the participant selection, interview

process and questions, data collection and analysis procedures, and detail any extraneous

variables that may impact the study.

The study will address the following research questions:







83



Research Method and Design

Driven by a gap in existing research to explore why or why not colleges engage in

succession planning, how and if current efforts prepare institutions for the leadership crisis, and

whether or not a college can sustain succession planning strategies, the researcher explored

which methods to best accomplish this. Because the study investigated factors of influence and

value by connecting the research questions to the experiences and perceptions of the participants

in a succession planning pilot program, a qualitative design was selected. Qualitative research

attempts to make sense of, interpret, or understand meaning through gathering data and building

knowledge and concepts, rather than ‘testing’ it (Merriam, 2009). This focus on interpretation,

construction, and meaning of experience informs the development of the research questions,

sample, data collection and analysis, and findings (Merriam, 2009). To build this knowledge and

understanding, the researcher used interviews, document analysis, and observations to inform

readers about the actual practice of succession planning in a specific environment.

In order to develop a richer understanding of the succession planning experiences in a

two year college environment, each pilot was approached as an instrumental case within a

bounded system to produce a collective case study that examines the research questions. Each

pilot college, or case, share several common conditions; the institutions are part of the MnSCU

system, have the same shared information and resources, and individually selected to be part of

the system pilot. These conditions produce the boundaries of the study. This collective

approach intended to produce a more holistic picture of the succession planning pilot program

84

within the bounded context of the MnSCU system because of the multisite cases examined

(Punch, 2009).

Therefore, an explanatory case study approach was chosen to examine each pilot college

for insight and to develop a richer understanding about the preparedness, implementation, and

impact of succession planning (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The additional benefit of this design

comes from extending the explanation from the presumed causal links of belonging to the system

to the real-life individual pilot college experiences (Baxter & Jack, 2008). This approach

allowed the researcher to learn more about the context, connections, and interrelatedness

phenomenon of succession planning in a bounded system (Punch, 2009). The more pilot

colleges included in the research, the more compelling, stable, valid, and generalizable the

results (Merriam, 2009; Punch, 2009).

The use of only colleges who agreed to participate in the succession planning pilot for

this study creates a more compelling interpretation and develops a fuller understanding of the

interrelatedness of factors within and between the pilots and the system (Punch, 2009). The

pilots thus become the embedded units of the case (MnSCU system succession planning) which

allowed for data to be analyzed within the units, between the units, and/or across the units

(Baxter & Jack, 2008). The ability to analyze at multiple level substantiates this approach as it

produces several other benefits as discussed by Merriam (2009): it will produce more concrete

and contextual knowledge, allow the reader to bring their own experiences and understanding to

the interpretation of the research, and extend generalization to the reader’s reference population

(P. 44-45).

By acquiring information with practical application in a systematic way, the research also

produced practical knowledge that colleges within the MnSCU system can use when planning

85

their own succession planning initiatives (Punch, 2009). Succession planning is presented within

this analysis and recommendations from research as a solution to the problem of the leadership

crisis, reinforcing the need for action research that ‘works towards solutions to problems in a

cyclical, iterative way’ (Punch, 2009, p.136). Because of this need, action research principles

were referenced as part of the design of this research to assist in ensuring that the combination of

‘doing’ and ‘inquiring’ would have a practical application or impact that readers could apply

(Punch, 2009 p. 135).

The research process was also exploratory in nature because it examined the

implementation of the modified Rothwell succession planning framework at the pilot colleges.

Instead of testing a hypothesis, the researcher attempted to make sense of the social phenomenon

– the leadership crisis. The researcher examined the data generated from the pilot colleges in

detail to develop generalizations that emerged from the patterns observed in the data. Therefore,

the analysis drew general conclusions from specific data generated during the study. These

generalizations were translated into practical application to improve the implementation of

succession planning at colleges within the MnSCU system (Merriam, 2009; Punch, 2009).

Because the researcher is the main instrument in a qualitative study (Punch, 2009), it is

important to review the researchers knowledge and experience with succession planning. The

researcher’s institution of employment is included in the pilot program and the researcher has

taken an active role in the succession planning efforts of the college and MnSCU system since

2010. This experience and the relationship the researcher has with the participants enhanced the

ability of the researcher to capture the perceptions of participants as an insider, increased the

researchers ability to develop propositions for applicability and transferability, and added value

to current shallow and incomplete research on the topic as it relates to the higher education

86

environment (Punch, 2009). However, the researcher is aware there may be biases about the

topic or the participants because of this involvement and that there is some hesitancy in

education and social science research around the use of case studies (Punch, 2009). This

hesitancy is rooted in the criticism that case studies are not generalizable (Punch, 2009). The

researcher worked to mitigate this concern by firmly establishing the need for the research with

clear research questions and boundaries, providing an in-depth understanding of the topic as it

applies to higher education, and identifying a clear strategy for data collection and analysis

(Punch, 2009). The learning provided by this research, particularly because knowledge of

succession planning in higher education is ‘shallow, fragmentary, and incomplete’ (Punch, 2009,

p.123) is intended to have a valuable contribution to the research topic.

Careful attention was given to the study’s conceptualization, data collection, analysis and

interpretation, depiction of detail, and the developed standards throughout the process to increase

the validity and reliability of results (Merriam, 2009). These methods increase credibility of the

study by affirming the congruency of the findings to reality, evidencing the training of the

researcher, and provide transferable application to other colleges (Merriam, 2009). Evidence of

these considerations is described in the following sections that address participant selection,

interview methodology, data collection procedures, and analysis technique.

Participants

Participants from the MnSCU succession planning pilot effort launched in 2014 are

included in this study. The purposeful attempt to include all of the participating colleges (six)

was part of the collective design of this study and intended to produce a more holistic picture of

the succession planning pilot program within the bounded context of the MnSCU system because

of the multisite cases examined (Punch, 2009). However, after four attempts at communication,

87

one college from the sample did not respond, thus the original sample size of six two-year

colleges from throughout the state of Minnesota was reduced to five. Each college’s CHRO was

contacted by the researcher by email and phone to explain the research and purpose of the study

and request participation. A follow-up communication by email and phone was made within a

week to ensure understanding, purpose, and answer questions. Between communications

participants also discussed any issues, considerations, or concerns with any other necessary

college stakeholders before consenting to participation.

After the interview with each CHRO, the researcher asked if there was anyone else on

campus that was actively involved in the pilot program. This question was asked, because as a

participant in the talent management system-wide committee, the researcher knew colleges who

participated in the pilot program were asked to have at least two key representatives (also called

project champions). Three campuses did identify another key representative. All were contacted

using an email communication that was slightly modified from the original and by phone. All

three key representatives agreed to participate in the study. As a result, eight interviews were

conducted representing five colleges from throughout the state.

Confidentiality and Informed Consent

This research is based on actual experiences and circumstances of participants, thus, all

guidelines in accordance with St. Cloud State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB)

were followed. Participant’s verbal and written consent were obtained prior to data collection

with all efforts made to ensure minimized risk, privacy, and safety.

Following the ethical principle of beneficence, the researcher understands the

responsibility to reflect on the possible consequences of the study for participants and the

colleges they represent (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The stories, experiences, ideas, opinions,

88

and information the participants provide are crucial to the results of this study, thus their

concerns must be mitigated to ensure thorough and truthful response. The participants in this

study signed a consent form prior to any data collection regarding their participation in the study

to disclose any possible risks and benefits of participation (Appendix B). Final analysis will

maintain the confidentiality of the participants. All participants were assured of the confidential

practices of the researcher which include the following: referencing institutions in a nameless

system (institution 1, institution 2, etc.), removal of all names within the study (a pseudonym

chart is included at the beginning of Chapter IV), and increased attention to the study findings

and recommendations to ensure responses that may identify a college or participant are not

included.

Dual recordings of interviews were done using an application on the researcher’s phone

and Audacity on the researcher’s computer. Both devices are password and thumbprint

protected. Recordings were transcribed on the same computer and each transcribed file was

password protected. Field notes were constructed in a Word document. Excel was used to

collect and track data, construct themes, and analyzed the data collected. All transcribed

recordings, field notes, files, and documents received from participants were scanned and stored

in a password protected folder. Originals were filed in the researcher’s locked office file drawer.

No other individuals have/had access to the researcher’s phone or computer.

Information specific to the pilot program within the system is accessible only to other

participants, system talent management staff, and the talent management steering committee.

Access to general pilot program information is stored on a password protected SharePoint site

and accessible to the same parties.

89

The risk to participants during and after the interview process is minimal. Data collection

in non-invasive and interviews were conducted to fit within the participants schedules. All

transcribed interviews were sent to individual participants for review to ensure accuracy and

intent/context.

Data Collection

The methods of data collection in qualitative research enhance credibility if they are

inclusive of multiple sources (Baxter & Jack, 2008). The data collection techniques of this study

included interviews, document analysis, and direct participant observation to produce a holistic

understanding of the succession planning efforts being studied (Baxter & Jack, 2008)..

Interview. Interviews were conducted with CHRO’s and identified key representatives

(project champions) on each campus using a semi-structured format to guide the process and

provide flexibility to utilize follow-up questions to probe for greater understanding (Merriam,

2009). As suggested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) the interview included a briefing, prepared

interview guide, and debriefing to ensure participant preparation and engagement. During the

briefing, participants will be reminded about the purpose of the study, reviewed research

protocol, were alerted to the recording software and devices, and had the opportunity to ask

questions to reduce any concerns or anxiety. Participants were then provided with an interview

guide that outlined the main questions guiding the interview but be made aware that questions,

dialogue, and probing or follow-up questions could be utilized. This was done to assist the

participant in preparing for the interview with specific and relevant answers, yet still allow

spontaneity (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). The guiding questions can be found in Appendix C.

In an effort to increase the validity of the data collection process, the reader should note

that these guiding questions were vetted through the researcher’s committee, constructed using

90

the quality criteria as outlined by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009), and followed the good question

principles to stimulate responses found in Merriam’s (2009) text. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009)

suggest that quality criteria be applied to interview process to conduct an ideal interview. These

quality criteria include: the extent of spontaneous, rich, specific, and relevant answers; the mix

of short and long interviewer/interviewee questions; the degree of follow up and clarifying by the

interviewer; the ongoing interpretation of the interview; the interviewers ability to verify

interpretations throughout the interview, and the totality of the self-reported story (p. 164).

Merriam (2009) suggests the use of experience and behavior, opinion and value, feeling,

knowledge, sensory, and background questions to uncover stimulate responses, uncover insight,

and solicit descriptive data for analysis.

To complete the interview, the researcher provided a short closing in an effort to

culminate the experience for the participant. This provided another opportunity for the

participant to ask questions, voice any closing comments, and in the case of CHRO’s, to provide

a key representative name for additional interviews. The closing also included time for the

researcher to inform the participants of any next steps and thank them. Interviews were

scheduled for 90 minutes but lasted from 35-75 minutes which allowed for additional dialogue

and open communication. Interviews were conducted from early November 2016 – late January

2017. Interviews were transcribed by the researcher and, as completed, were sent to the

participants to ensure accuracy and intent from January 2016 – March 2017. The analysis of the

transcripts did not begin until after approval by all participants in the study had been received.

Document analysis. For the purpose of this study, documents are defined as a wide

range of relevant written, visual, digital, physical materials, and artifacts (Merriam, 2009). It

includes all documents utilized or referenced by the participants and all documents produced as a

91

result of this study including all notes (observation, field), secondary research sources, data

mined from participants, transcripts, and web pages. The researcher considered an array of

questions using Merriam’s (2009) summary to determine authenticity and accuracy of documents

during the research process and disclose any further systems used for review to the reader (p.

151).

Observation. The researcher had some ongoing interaction with the participants

throughout the course of the study because of the work responsibilities of the researcher. As

previously disclosed, the researcher’s institution is involved in the pilot program and the

researcher engages with the participants in an ongoing way because of activities associated with

these responsibilities. These responsibilities may include steering committee work with the

MnSCU Talent Management office, visits to the campuses of the participants for work that is

related or unrelated to succession planning, and presentations to other parties on the college and

system level work related to succession planning. This ongoing involvement provided additional

opportunities to observe and experience the phenomenon firsthand throughout the research study,

a key component and benefit of observations (Merriam, 2009). This is a variation or form of

participant observation because there was access to additional information through these

situations and experiences by the researcher. This active member status led to fieldwork

observations that were implemented into this study. This is an unstructured observation strategy

as the nature of access, focus, and logistics were not predetermined (Punch, 2009). To record

observational data, the researcher used field notes to document the observations by writing brief

notations that are stored in the researcher’s files.

92

Data Analysis

Data analysis in qualitative research is ongoing and simultaneous with data collection as

the researcher cannot anticipate what the final analysis of the study will be (Merriam, 2009).

Merriam (2009) notes the process of deciding what will impact the study, assessing relevancy,

reforming data collection based on previous experiences (interview, observations), and exploring

while in the field is what adds to the richness of the data but cautions this can extend collection

into infinity. To manage this process the researcher used a coding system to consolidate, reduce,

and interpret meaningful units of data related to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). As

referenced, Lincoln and Guba (1985) further define these meaningful units of data with criteria

that will be used throughout this study (Merriam, 2009). These criteria require that the unit

should reveal relevant information and stimulate the reader to critically think about the

information and that the information be able to stand alone, meaning it can be interpreted without

additional information or context. With these criteria in mind, interviews, field notes, and

documents were coded to find emerging categories and themes. The researcher explored

available computer programs to assist in the tracking of data, construction of themes and analysis

but selected to use Word and Excel to manage the process.

The researcher used the Miles and Huberman (1994) framework for qualitative data

analysis as outlined by Punch (2009). This interactive framework shows the ongoing nature of

data collection, data reduction, data display and conclusion and provides analytic guidance

during the analysis process (Punch, 2009, p. 174). An inductive approach was utilized to allow

for a bottom up approach where ideas, concepts, and themes emerged from the data. Using a

recommended approach from Punch (2009), a process was developed to affix codes; note

reflection, sort for phrases, relationships, patterns, and distinctions; isolate patterns and processes

93

to use in upcoming data collection; create sets of generalizations within the data; and confront

those generalizations with a formalized body of knowledge (Punch, 2009. p. 346).

Using Merriam’s (2009) step by step process of analysis to produce coherent findings in

cross and within case analysis, category construction, sorting, naming, were critical. Specific

tactics recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) that range from descriptive to explanatory

and concrete to conceptual were also followed by the researcher to build a logical chain of

evidence and create coherent findings.

To implement this process, the researcher began by identifying units of analysis which

included printing each interview with large margins, browsing through each transcript as a

whole, noting first impressions, and then rereading each transcript line by line to open code each

interview. An iterative process was used to constantly compare each interview and to give short

summary codes to each chunk of data. The researcher then built a code structure to imbed the

research questions into the codes to prevent drifting. This compilation of codes evolved through

four rounds of analysis. Final themes, codes, subcodes, and subdomains were constructed that

were responsive to the purpose of the research, exhaustive, mutually exclusive, sensitizing, and

conceptually congruent (Merriam, 2009, p. 185-186). Finally, to add consistency and

dependability to the analysis, the researcher had the committee chair and a committee member

review a step-by-step plan prior to beginning the coding process and the drafts of the coding

process at each of the four rounds of analysis.

Delimitations and Positioning

This study examines individual college based efforts of succession planning at self-

identified pilot colleges within the MnSCU system. It will also consider the efforts of the

MnSCU system to support these planning efforts within the pilot colleges. The study does not

94

address succession planning efforts at universities within the same system or efforts at other

college not participating in the pilot program within the system. The study does not examine

other colleges or systems efforts nationally but does draw from data on national studies on

succession planning in higher education to inform research, findings, and conclusions.

Delimitations. This qualitative study is constructed with volunteer participants whose

role is as a CHRO in colleges who have participated in the MnSCU succession planning pilot. It

also includes those key representatives or project-champions who have been identified by a

college’s CHRO. It is assumed that the participants act in a leadership role for succession

planning efforts within their colleges and understand the terminology, research, benefits, and

challenges that require it for both the college in which they are employed and the MnSCU

system.

The primary delimitations of this study are rooted in sample size and participant

selection. At the time of this study, six colleges have self-identified and chosen to participate in

the succession planning pilot supported by the MnSCU system. However, only five of these

colleges are represented in this study. By selecting to focus on colleges that have chosen to

participate, the study does not include the perspective of those who chose not to participate and

why. This limits the scope of the study but aligns with the research questions as proposed. The

participant selection was limited to those acting in the CHRO and/or project champion role

within their colleges. Each CHRO was asked to identify an additional key representative or

project champion to interview, which resulted in three additional interviews. One campus did

not identify a project champion and in the case of the other college, the researcher was the

identified project champion. It is not anticipated that additional interviews would not have

yielded any additional information from the colleges for two reasons. First, succession planning

95

efforts within the MnSCU system have been led primarily by the Talent Management Division

which reports to the Human Resource division. Communications regarding succession planning

efforts, activities, and expectations have been primarily reported through and from this division

and the college CHRO’s. In addition, the subgroup of the Talent Management Steering

Committee whose primary role is to encourage and support succession planning at colleges and

universities, is partially made up of pilot college CHRO’s. As a member and attendee of these

bi-weekly meetings, the researcher has observed that efforts in succession planning at colleges

within this subgroup have been primarily led by CHRO’s.

Researcher position. The topic of leadership development and succession planning in

higher education came to my attention through my work experience as an unlimited (similar to

tenure in the Minnesota two-year college system) faculty member, dean, and vice president level

administrator since 2001. The college where I am employed is part of the MnSCU system. I am

also currently or have previously been a member of several MnSCU system committees,

taskforces, and activities including the Talent Management Steering Committee, Succession

Planning Taskforce, Performance Management Taskforce, New Administrator Orientation

programming, and several training and development initiatives for deans.

My interest in the subject of professional development and leadership succession comes

from these work experiences and my own personal desire to better prepare myself and others for

future senior leadership positions in higher education. I am a 2007 graduate of the Luoma

Leadership Academy, an 18-month competitive entry leadership development program for

MnSCU employees. The leadership curriculum includes application of leadership skills and

concepts grounded in theoretical leadership concepts, principles and practices designed in

cooperation with The Academy for Leadership and Development in Mesa, Arizona. I am also a

96

graduate of the Executive Leadership Development Program (2015-2016 cohort), a year-long

program designed to strengthen the executive leadership pipeline of the MnSCU system. This

competitive entry, accelerated development program includes executive stretch assignments,

sponsorship, coaching, mentoring, seminars, networking, and case study experiences to produce

high potential, high performing leadership candidates. These experiences have expanded my

knowledge, perspective, and understanding of the need for succession planning that is

strategically designed to meet the needs of a large system.

I am also actively engaged in succession planning within the institution where I work. I

have participated in the development of the system support website, the facilitation of succession

planning at other colleges, in training and development around succession planning, and act as an

active advocate within the system for succession planning. This active involvement in the

subject has alerted me to the increasing need for succession planning at an institutional level as I

experience first-hand the operational consequences of failing to prepare for turnover.

I am concerned about the turnover in community colleges. I see and experience mid-level

directors and managers leaving higher education after burning out, dean’s turnover at an

alarming rate, a decreased time in position for c-suite administrators, and continued failed

searches for high level administrative positions. I know the demands of the positions, the wage

inequities, and the lack of personal and professional balance that exists for those in these

positions, and yet I see many persevere, succeed, and bring their institutions to unprecedented

levels of success. This study ultimately stems from my desire to better prepare myself and my

colleagues to better lead our MnSCU colleges in the 21st century and avoid a leadership crisis

(documented in the literature review) that could operationally paralyze our institutions. At the

core of the community college mission we develop engaged citizens, prepare a future workforce,

97

and deliver it in a lower-cost, supportive environment that serves those who need it most. How

will community colleges continue to deliver this important mission if they do not plan for and

invest in the people needed to lead these complex institutions in the future?

Summary

This qualitative study will examine the responses from two-year colleges participating in

a succession planning pilot program in the state of Minnesota. The responses of CHRO’s

representing each college will be used to explore the factors of influence and value in a

succession planning initiative while constructing knowledge that can assist other colleges in

preparing for a leadership crisis. The use of interviews, document analysis, and observations

will work together to inform the reader of the actual practice of succession planning in a specific

environment. The study will strictly adhere to the principles and processes described in the

research method and design section of the chapter to insure validity in findings. The following

chapter will discuss the findings and analysis related to the research questions of this qualitative

study.

98

Chapter IV: Results

This study attempts to answer four research questions related to the succession planning

experiences of pilot colleges in a two-year union environment. The research questions, listed

below, were designed to add to the existing body of knowledge on the subject by minimizing

gaps within research, enhancing existing research, and providing new knowledge and

understanding to the audience about the application of succession planning in higher education.









This chapter is constructed by framing the study results around each research question

which includes; interpretations, direct responses from the participants, comparison to data from

the literature review, and summary analysis. The research results will tie the interview questions

and responses to each research question to present the factors of influence and value each

participant experienced.

In order to protect the identity of the participants in the study and the institutions in which

they work(ed), the eight individuals within this study are referred to by name as found in Table

Two. As noted in chapter three, these individuals and their responses represent their experiences

99

related to succession planning within their institutions, as college and MnSCU system

employees, and as members in a succession planning pilot program.

Table 2

Participant Pseudonym Chart

Pseudonym Organization

Mark College A

Richard College A

Melissa College B

Susan College C

Robert College C

Ana College D

Claire College E

Henry College E

In forming the research question results, it is important to note that responses to each

interview question were not directly tied to a specific research question. During analysis,

responses from the interview questions were not categorized by research question or by

interview question initially but by theme. These themes and their emerging categories and codes

were completed regardless of when the responses occurred. After this process, these themes,

categories, and codes were then tied back to the research questions. Thus, elements of the

interview questions and the responses that occurred from them were no longer tied to a specific

research question. This is important for the reader to note as responses that were a result of an

interview question may (and often do) tie to more than one research question.

100

Research Question Results

This section of chapter four will present the result related to each of the four research

questions. Each section below will reintroduce the research question, tie interview questions to

the research question, present detailed results in the participants own words, and provide an

analysis summary.

Succession planning utilization - Research question one. Research question one was

designed to identify how individuals within their institutions utilized succession planning to

prepare for or resolve issues presented by the leadership crisis in higher education. This question

sought to draw out how individual institutions utilize succession planning to mitigate the

consequences of turnover and draw out specific practices that are employed to prepare for the

leadership crisis. The literature outlines many causes for the leadership crisis, yet only

peripherally examines the actual impact of the crisis on two-year colleges. To understand

college efforts in succession planning and the impact of these efforts in more detail, several

interview questions were designed to more deeply explore the issues surrounding utilization of

succession planning and if these efforts led to resolution.

Interview questions were designed to establish participant’s knowledge of and

engagement in succession planning, the system pilot program, and their institutions involvement,

thus summarizing the reasons why both the individual and institution were involved. As a result

of this question, participants also articulated why succession planning is important to them (as

individuals), to their institutions, and to higher education as a whole. An additional category of

response related to the ability to utilize succession planning to prepare for issues related to the

leadership crisis also emerged. This directly related to the organizational structure and current

101

philosophy of leadership at the institution and their understanding, support, and engagement in


To continue this thread of engagement and utilization, an additional interview question

tied specifically how participants had engaged in succession planning in their institutions so far.

As follow-up or prompt if needed, reference was made to the succession planning framework

and whether or not it had been introduced and/or applied as part of the engagement and

utilization process. Responses from interview questions also specifically addressed the

framework by seeking to understand what challenges or roadblocks had been experienced in

applying the modified model of succession planning on the campus. These questions led to

participants discussing what had worked as part of the model and which elements they had been

using or planned to use. This specially ties to the utilization element of succession planning for

preparing for a leadership crisis as asked in research question one and how the framework was

utilized within the institution as asked in research question three. As participants described their

short and long term goals related to succession planning as part of interview question six, current

efforts in succession planning and the framework and its steps were repeatedly referenced. The

overall value (or not) of succession planning and how it was (was not) helping to resolve issues

presented by the leadership crisis in higher education was also referenced in interview question

seven as participants provided advice and recommendations to other colleges moving forward.

Participation in succession planning pilot program. In establishing how institutions

(and individuals) had utilized succession planning to prepare for and resolve issues presented by

the leadership crisis in higher education, it is important to establish a baseline for why

institutions (and individuals) selected to be a part of the succession planning pilot. This question

regarding how succession planning was utilized was posed to participants in interview question

102

one and included prompts to understand how participants had learned about and been involved in

the system succession planning pilot program.

The responses split into two categories which focused on individual and institutional

reasons for or need to engage in succession planning. From the individual perspective, there

were several reasons for engagement. Mark, Melissa, Susan, Ana, Robert, and Henry responded

their engagement in succession planning was part of their institutional role or job responsibilities.

This may be a formal role such as the job title of CHRO, or an informal role such as the

champion that was delegated or self-selected. Some appointed roles were based on known or

perceived strengths or experiences (Robert and Henry), and some based simply on passion for

the topic area (Richard). Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Henry were part of the system level talent

management steering committee or related subcommittees at some point in their tenure, although

not necessarily working on succession planning initiatives within that larger committee. This

exposure to system level committee work was reflected in their responses throughout the study

and specifically in response to this question.

Engagement in succession planning. In continuing to understand how and why

participants engaged in succession planning in their institutions, a second interview question was

posed. The responses below are framed from a broader institutional perspective and include sub

categories that emerged in responses such as: turnover; leadership knowledge, understanding,

and support; system level influences; and a culture of support for professional development

emerged as categories of response.

Turnover. All participants’ responses included reference to turnover. The responses

reflected concern about turnover in high level leadership positions, including c-suite positions

and the presidency, and turnover at the mid-management level. Primary concern in the mid-

103

management level focused on IT, facilities, and dean level positions. During the course of the

interviews, several participants noted concern about current or anticipated turnover due to

retirement, organizational restructure, use of interim’s and attrition. The concern was evident to

the researcher as participants described examples of how turnover had led to issues with

continuity of operations, loss of organizational history and process knowledge, and gaps in

service. Further, the lack of preparation for turnover and the difficulties filling positions because

of budget and time constraints was of great concern to two participants. These responses will be

also be expanded and further summarized later in review of research question four.

This concern, as established in the significance of the study section of chapter one, is

identified as pipeline issues related to demographics, competitive forces, and lack of qualified

candidates from the literature review (p. 11-15). Turnover, leading to vacated leadership

positions, is a primary condition both for higher education’s increased interest in the principles

of succession planning and for establishing the need for succession planning to resolve the

institutional issues that stem from the predicted leadership crisis (Betts et al., 2009; Cook & Kim,

2012; Ebbers et al., 2010; Gaffney, 2005; Luna, 2010; Mann, 2010; McMaster, 2012; Neefe,

2009, Rothwell, 2010; Shults, 2001).

Key leader involvement. All participants also vocalized that a key leader on campus and

their knowledge of succession planning or role at the institution or system level had influenced

their institutions engagement in succession planning. In all cases, the interviewees responded

that the CHRO had a crucial role in advocating for involvement. Although all noted presidential

knowledge of succession planning initiatives, Mark, Melissa, Ana, Richard, Robert, and Henry

noted the college president as being actively engaged in some form with the process. In

describing the involvement of the president in succession on the campuses participating, the

104

words used included active support, verbal support, passive support, financial support, part of (or

not) the project team, and disengaged. In three instances, the president of the college left during

the course of the pilot which directly impacted the direction and pace of succession planning

utilization. Mark voiced further concern about this presidential turnover stating, “High and mid-

level staffing changes, including the president have hurt our progress. We had four different

presidents in four years plus four different VP’s and several new deans. It’s hard to renew

interest in succession planning with new people in key leadership positions.” Noting that

“leadership style has a definite impact and influence on succession planning,” Henry sought

ways to include succession planning as part of the strategic plan to help sustain its importance.

This turnover at the presidential level “creates inconsistencies in organizational structure and

leads to more time, lack of understanding and people knowledge, lost institutional history, and

lots of restarts.” Thus, the importance of engaged and consistent leadership was vocalized

because recent turnover had negatively impacted succession planning progress and efforts.

Culture of leadership development. A desire to create or support a culture of leadership

development also emerged as a reason why colleges were interested in participating in the

succession planning pilot. This culture of leadership development as component of succession

planning was presented in higher education section of the literature review as building talent to

meet current and future workforce demands with practices that lead to better prepared,

productive, and more effective leaders (Davies & Davies, 2010; Feeney, 2003). The role of

leadership development in in higher education and the research surrounding its use has increased

and shifted from a trait and individualized process to one that is more collaborative, shared, and

collective (Kezar, 2009). The recognition of building leadership development into the

105

institutional culture was voiced by participants as both a reason why to participate in the pilot

and how they either were or wanted to prepare for the leadership crisis.

Citing success in leadership development initiatives in pockets within the institution,

Richard articulated a clear need for a culture of leadership which includes professional

development and measures that provide clarity and understanding and are tied to institutional

strategic goals. Ana echoed this response by speaking about the desire to integrate leadership

into the culture of the college and provided a recent leadership development example within the

college used to develop selected individuals. This leadership development pilot in the college

included select participants from multiple unions in a semester long training series on

supervisory management techniques, generational workplace issues, and polarity management

which tied to a survey of employees on development needs. Ana noted the success of the series

but expressed concern as the college was not able to move beyond this pilot and was unsure how

to measure the success of the pilot.

This desire to build internal talent capacity was also reflected by Melissa who noted the

need to develop internal talent but yet to balance this with external hires. Citing examples of

investment in individuals she expressed the desire for a more comprehensive and long-term

focus on development, especially with expected high turnover in key positions which were the

knowledge base of the college. Mark spoke of a comprehensive leadership development

program that had investment from leadership and had been successful and embedded into

organizational culture after several sessions. This “collaborative culture between administration

and employee” supported a “culture of engagement, involvement, and input” which he noted as

part of how the college was establishing itself as a desirable employer. Henry summarized the

need to establish a culture of development as part of succession planning by stating that there is a

106

“direct influence and impact of leadership style on systems thinking and the need to build

maturity into organizational development and culture.”

Organizational leadership, structure and plan. Stemming from the first interview

questions, another theme emerged that tied the leadership team make-up, organizational

structure, and the strategic plan of the colleges to preparing for/engaging in succession planning.

As participants spoke of the leadership team, the researcher asked a probing question about the

make-up of the team at each institution. The leadership team at the college’s used as part of this

study included the president, c-suite employees, and in two cases expanded to deans and

institutional research and effectiveness. C-suite employees represented all facets of the

organization including academic affairs, student affairs, college foundation, information

technology, finance, human resources, and administrative services, although position titles did

vary.

The philosophy of these executive leadership teams and the ability of the institution to tie

succession planning to strategy seemed to directly impact whether and how much the institution

engaged in succession planning. In several institutions, succession planning was included in

individual, department and/or institutional goals. Richard provided samples of personal,

department, and college goals that directly tied to succession planning. These included terms or

components of succession planning like leadership development opportunities, performance

evaluations, and resource allocation. However, direct alignment and inclusion of succession

planning within a departmental and college-wide plan was not necessarily articulated. This was

also noted by Mark, who explained succession planning was “reflected as elements of succession

planning like employee development, retention, selection, and performance within HR and

college-wide plans.”

107

Noting the mention of strategic plans (organizational and departmental) during the first

interview, the researcher included this as a probing question to all other participants as well. The

impact of strategic planning on succession planning was the focus of Neefe’s (2009) study

presented in the literature review. In this study, the data showed a strong positive correlation

between colleges with a mature strategic planning process and those with a more mature

succession planning process (Neefe, 2009). Henry supported this finding as he spoke about

using succession planning to develop goals as part of the strategic plan so specific activities are

reflected in departmental goals. By including succession planning or its related activities into

strategic college and departmental plans, this increases the priority of these activities and their

likelihood of being accomplished. Henry remarked, “This creates a shared understanding of how

to prioritize efforts to systematically organize and achieve goals.”

In addition to inclusion in strategic planning, Susan and Ana also indicated they had or

were about to use succession planning strategies to fulfill accreditation requirements. (Note: all

colleges in this study are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission.) In one of the

accreditation tracks approved by the HLC, action project(s) are required and institutions must

track and report progress on an ongoing basis. Such a commitment reflects a high priority on

succession planning and its activities.

However, outside of one institution, this ability to accomplish a holistic and

comprehensive approach to inclusion in strategic planning was not reflected in other participant’s

responses. Rather, responses indicated a siloed approach in departments throughout the college

where pockets of use of succession planning elements were reflected in specific activities related

to succession planning. These siloed activities were not necessarily included in departmental

strategic plans and were not part of the overall college strategic plan. Melissa listed several

108

activities such as employee onboarding, training and development, evaluation, and retention – all

elements of succession planning – but not able to indicate, outside of HR, where, how, and if

these elements were comprehensively and/or strategically addressed at the department level.

Another example, shared by Claire, included the use of an employee portal that was created to

support clear and transparent communications related to succession planning activities.

However, she noted that the portal was not used college-wide and seemed to be accessed only by

a few individuals. Robert responded that he was unsure if any elements of succession planning

were even in the overall strategic plan or reflected in any departmental area. Susan indicated

current efforts were underway to align HR departmental plans with the strategic plan of the

college and other departmental plans such as the diversity, academic, and facility plans.

However, the pace of those efforts and the inclusion within those plans had yet to be completed.

From the researcher’s perspective, it seemed conceptualizing how these plans fit together proved

challenging overall due to a lack of knowledge at the leadership level about what was included in

the college strategic plan or within departmental plans outside their own area. When asked the

reason for this disconnect, turnover of the president, CHRO or other c-suite position was cited

repeatedly (Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Claire). This aligns with the research from Richards

(2009) who identified this as one of the emergent themes in her study, noting that succession

planning practices exist at each institution in her study but the formalness of those plans varied

greatly. Richards (2009), found that efforts around leadership development activities were

prevalent however these were not tied to succession planning models, strategies, or policies.

Participants did recognize the importance of preparing the leadership team to learn about

succession planning and several participants referenced engagement strategies that had been

utilized to facilitate the discussion around succession planning. Involvement was key as noted

109

by Melissa, Susan, Robert, and Claire. Whether describing exposing the leadership team to the

concept of succession planning to build collaboration or conducting one-on-one meetings with

the leadership team, the desire to have facilitated discussions to build knowledge around

succession planning was clear. Robert described a discussion around using an outside facilitator

to manage the succession planning process but that the ultimate decision was to utilize the

strengths of the leadership team to identify facilitator and project managers internally to increase

engagement and involvement. Claire also described a similar process of using a member of the

campus community to support and share expertise around succession planning to build a spirit

collaboration and teamwork. Melissa described the learning process of the leadership team as

the concept of succession planning was introduced from realization to seeking information to

buy-in. She described how realization was brought about by using an example of turnover in

each team member’s area and as current and upcoming turnover was discussed, recent examples

of loss of institutional knowledge, operational gaps, and performance issues were shared.

Realizing the impact, they began to seek out information through research which led to

prioritizing succession planning efforts. This prioritization led to a commitment to succession

planning which was confirmed in an action project with the HLC. Susan used a similar strategy

but utilized system level resources, including the succession planning toolkit, from the

beginning, to emphasize the significance of the project and the need for open communication

about future possibilities and opportunities.

Individual engagement. As responses were coded, it became clear there was a distinction

by participants between why succession is important to an individual (and their department),

institution, or to higher education in general and the actual reasons cited for participation in the

pilot program. Richard simply noted a strong passion for the concept, noting that even though it

110

wasn’t in his job description or part of his formal education, the subject and its implications were

very interesting. Robert placed high value on the importance of succession planning in his/her

department noting, “I have great staff and I have lost great staff and so I think our employees

make or break the organization and so I personally value this strongly.” When asked to further

expand on why succession planning was important to him, Robert responded:

I don’t know what triggered it in my mind. I think maybe I just like to sleep at night. I

mapped it out, drew up a little Vizio diagram of all the main duties of all of my direct

reports and kind of mapped out. If this person in this position were no longer here, how

would I temporarily cover it the next day?

From the institutional perspective, the concept of mitigating risk during turnover,

especially in high level or high risk positions, was voiced repeatedly by Mark, Melissa, Susan,

Ana, Richard, and Claire. Changes in turnover patterns within the college have been top of mind

to Mark, Melissa, and Susan. Susan spoke of the impact of the turnover stating,

As long time people in positions retire and turnover increases there is a feeling that the

knowledge base of the institution is changing. There is a knowledge gap has led to the

loss of our (college’s) history. People have been employed at the college, maybe even in

the same positions for decades, and their positions have changed to include lots of

different elements as their abilities and capabilities expanded. Replacing these

individuals is difficult.

Melissa also spoke of the growing fear of losing multiple employees from the same area at the

same time, citing maintenance and IT employees as examples. She went on to describe how new

employees, if they could be found, were met with overwhelming expectations and workload, thus

making transitions for these new employees difficult and retention an issue. Claire simply said

111

the college was not prepared for turnover in key leadership positions. As Henry summarized

why succession planning is important to the college, he stated:

Succession planning is to think systemically about your talent and how you mitigate the

risks of people losing but also how you grow people so that if you think people have

potential they are ready to take on opportunities as they emerge.

The lack of understanding of what succession planning is and why it is needed within the

college, was also cited as a short-coming within the industry as a whole by Susan, Claire, and

Henry. Examples from two participants noted specific frustrations about perception within the

industry. Susan spoke with mixed emotion about the union influence on succession planning in

higher education, specifically in Minnesota. Recognizing the need for balance and that people

cannot just be “picked” for positions, there was frustration around not being able to identify

people and train them for certain positions.

Claire voiced her frustration around the perception of the role of human resources in

general stating:

Higher Education is notorious for short changing its offices of human resources and

really puts HR into this transactional space. Understand we are trained professionals and

that’s only a portion of the work we do. We do much greater, much more strategic kinds

of things.

In this section the researcher has examined and summarized the participant responses

related to research question one: How have individual institutions utilized succession planning to

prepare for or resolve issues presented by the leadership crisis in higher education? To answer

this research question, the researcher first sought to understand the base knowledge participants

had about succession planning and how each individual was involved in succession planning. A

112

bifurcation emerged that indicated there were different perspectives about how and why each

was engaging in succession planning from a personal (participant) perspective and a colleges or

institutional perspective. These responses indicate a close tie to the institutional culture, which

emerged as a strong theme in this question as participants worked to define how culture and

leadership (collectively and individually) at the college was a determining factor in deciding to

take part in and utilize succession planning. Each college’s approach to succession planning was

different, as were their engagement strategies. Broadly speaking, this was impacted by the issues

presented in participant responses such as knowledge level, organizational culture, strategic

planning, and leadership philosophy. These issues support those identified in the literature

review, specifically in studies conducted by Neefe (2009), Richards (2009), Luzbetak (2010),

and McMaster’s (2012) that identified institutional culture, strategic planning, and leadership

philosophy as factors of best practice that institutions can develop to support succession

planning.

In regard to resolving the issues presented by the leadership crisis, the responses focused

largely on one issue – turnover. Reasons for turnover were clearly outlined in the literature

review (demographic, competitive forces, job requirements, lack of preparation, competencies,

changing political climate, institutional bureaucracy), but responses did not focus on these.

Rather responses focused on the positions vacated, impact, and the desire or need to find ways to

mitigate the impact of the turnover. These impacts have led participants to design effort to

prepare for this turnover, which is the focus of the next research question.

Current efforts in succession planning - Research question two. Research question

two asks how the current efforts of the pilot colleges (supported by the system) prepare

institutions for the leadership crisis in higher education. This question sought to understand how

113

the system pilot program has/had influenced the institutions ability to respond to the challenges

presented by the leadership crisis and why institutions decided to engage (or not) in the pilot

program. To build understanding about the efforts for the reader, the interview questions were

focused first on benefits and opportunities the participants and their institutions experienced by

engaging in succession planning. This line of questioning sought to understand the value of

succession planning at the institution and explore what participants saw as opportunities as a

pilot in the succession planning process.

In discovering benefits and opportunities, the challenges and roadblocks experienced by

the participants and their institutions were also explored. In interview question four, participants

were asked specifically about the challenges or roadblocks experienced when applying the

modified Rothwell model of succession planning/implementing succession planning on their

campus. However, this line of questioning took two distinct paths during the analysis process.

One path was big picture, meaning the challenges and roadblocks had nothing to do with the

framework or its application but rather with higher education, system issues, and institutional

priorities. This themes will be explored as part of research question two as the responses tie to

the efforts of the system and institution rather than the modified Rothwell framework explored in

research question three.

During the analysis process, specific strategies and activities were gleaned from

participant responses that add value to succession planning from and institutional and system

level perspective. The description of these practices is included in the analysis of this research

question as this demonstrates how efforts were supported, implemented, and adopted and can

indicate whether such efforts were successful and sustainable.

114

Succession planning benefits and opportunities. When asked about benefits

experienced by engaging in succession planning, including benefits from participating in a

system led succession planning pilot, participant responses were at the individual (benefits

experienced by the participant), institutional, and system level. However, in analysis, the

researcher focused exploring the overarching concepts that supported these benefits, such as

developed processes, flexibility, preparedness, process, and managing change, as they are a

result of succession planning strategy implementation.

Benefits. When describing the benefit of creating processes around succession planning,

Henry focused on the characteristics of those processes, stating they should be “clear, easy to

follow, inclusive, and utilize technology to support.” In designing processes, Ana noted that the

right design of succession planning processes can “create and support a culture of engagement

and belonging.” Processes were noted by Ana and Henry as a way to support and increase the

sustainability of succession planning efforts.

A benefit of participation in the system pilot for succession planning was that many

processes were shared from the system or between institutions to support efforts in succession

planning. These processes, noted Richard, could increase the system-wide type and availability

of opportunities for qualified applicants who desired promotion. This recognition of importance

of integrated processes to align succession planning to strategy is an important step to

formalizing succession planning and impacting long term planning initiatives (Neefe, 2009;

Rothwell, 2010).

The knowledge of the development and preparedness of employees as a result of

succession planning at the system and institutional level “created a more holistic view of human

capital”, which Henry noted as a “better sense of employee capacities and capabilities.” To

115

support employee development and preparedness, Henry stated that, “fundamental documents

like job descriptions could be redefined from traditional roles and positions to meet current and

future institutional needs.” He continued that this “brought a consistency around the employee

review process and use of best practices which also created agreement and buy-in around

succession planning in critical positions.” This focus on agreement and buy-in required

improved c-suite communication, a benefit noted by Robert, which “broadened knowledge and

understanding of what other leaders and supervisors were doing in their areas and departments.”

This improved communication and knowledge base established through the succession

planning process also helped increase organizational understanding, which Richard saw as a

stepping stone to “challenging the status quo around organizational design, structural models,

and positions titles.” This same sentiment was shared by Henry who stated, “Tools like

succession planning help build a more sophisticated understanding of what you really need that

can then make your reactions and decisions more powerful. In doing so we can refocus work

from transactional to transformational.” Susan echoed this need to utilize succession planning in

decision making, indicating it was a “change in the mode of managing turnover, from crisis to

planned, and being more strategic.”

Recognition of this more strategic approach and its resulting benefits was something Ana

didn’t expect. As one of the pilots who presented to the Board of Trustees at a system board

meeting, she noted the recognition from the board, system, and other institutions as an indirect

benefit. This reputation for utilizing succession planning led to inclusion in other conversations

and discussions with institution in and outside of the pilot, further increasing the understanding

of the importance of succession planning to resolve issues and challenges as part of the

leadership crisis in the state and higher education.

116

Another benefit stemming from this more systematic approach to the way individuals

approach succession planning in higher education articulated from several participants was about

the development opportunities provided to employees at the system and institutional level. “A

systematic approach was needed to provide people with development opportunities…there is a

need for a more integrated system around employee development,” Henry said. All participants

noted some kind of professional development benefit as part of succession planning which

included: connecting employees to a network and expanding skill sets (Ana); bringing awareness

to the need for professional development to ensure continuity in the face of change (Robert);

developing a clear pathway for development and promotion with a clear roadmap (Claire); and

including high level leadership in development through conversations about positions to build

continuity in operations (Susan). This more systematic approach to development as part of

succession planning also led to increased detail and documentation, a benefit noted Richard,

Claire, and Henry. Specifically Claire stated:

Succession planning is scenario planning. It forced us to think through a whole series of

what-ifs. Its contingency planning that forced us to think about the potential issues if

people in key positions leave. This is operational security.

As the reader considers the benefit of leadership development to build talent, recall the

leadership development programs in the MnSCU system outlined in the literature review. The

Luoma Leadership Academy Program, Executive Leadership Development program, and variety

of leadership courses and seminars organized by the system were designed to build a strong

leadership pipeline within the system (p.62-63). Mark, Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Henry noted

the benefit of these programs from a direct participant or institutional perspective. These

development opportunities and their ability to build capacity at the college and system level were

117

seen as not only benefits, but were among the opportunities articulated by participants as

discussed in the next section of this research.

Opportunities. During the interview process participants intertwined opportunities with

benefits and challenges as they spoke about their efforts in succession planning. The researcher

differentiated benefits from challenges to provide the reader with a more historical and current

perspective, (benefits) and a future perspective (opportunities). In addressing what opportunities

participants felt existed for themselves and the institution the largest area that emerged focused

on building capacity, both for the institution and the system, through development.

To build capacity, Mark, Susan, Ana, Richard, and Henry recognized the need for a

collaborative culture that may require a change in how institutions think about their employees.

To produce systemic change Henry called for institutions to “develop a maturity in thinking

among leaders that integrated systems-level thinking in the philosophy of work.” As an example

he noted the need for changing traditional roles and workloads in HR from transaction to

transformational. Susan looked for institutions to change their mindset to do things differently

with a focus on what is best for student, noting that “this requires a collaborative culture between

the system, administration (at colleges), and employees.” Specifically Mark called for a “culture

that supports responsibility and accountability with involvement, input and engagement.” This

culture may involve actions such as hiring practices that support the idea of hiring and building

creative minds (Richard), using data in decision making (Ana), using an HLC AQIP action

project (Ana), or building strong union relations that are proactive and work through problems

(Melissa).

In reference to future opportunities Susan, Ana, and Robert narrowed in on the potential

from current talent within each college and the state system. To accomplish this, Ana planned to

118

use a risk assessment tool from the toolkit to create an opportunity for dialogue and to create a

greater understanding among leadership about employee’s roles, responsibilities, and

possibilities. Susan shared that turnover could be a great opportunity to redefine the needs of a

position. Rather than simply reposting a position with the same qualifications and

responsibilities, Susan acknowledged how it was important to “take the time to make changes,

reorganize, and modify position descriptions to attract internal and external talent while meeting

institutional goals.” Noting there was “lots of talent and room for opportunity to advance, just

not always within the institution but within the system,” Robert focused on building a positive

message about development and promotion opportunities by “taking succession planning to the

next level to impact morale.”

Ana voiced the opportunity to learn more from other institutions work and replicate their

best practices but noted that would “require some system organization with more training and

support.” As Ana spoke about the desire for additional training and support from the system she

offered a specific suggestion for the system to continuously improve the succession planning

toolkit campuses can access. She saw this as a way to use new and existing information and data

to update the toolkit and move initiatives forward while guiding system and campus decision

making. Continuing to expand upon the opportunity, she provided additional examples of

possible support including: providing data on determined data points (system and institution) to

campuses; use of existing data from campus climate, employee satisfaction, and engagement

surveys for improvement; and/or conducting a longitudinal study of the effects of policies,

procedures, and programs and their impact on succession planning.

Development opportunities, from other campuses or from the system, was something

several other participants also referenced as they continued to provide specific suggestions in

119

their responses. Acknowledging that there are “lots of learning and development opportunities

out there,” Mark provided a detailed example of an internal leadership program, done in

collaboration with the unions, with the goal of changing and expanding roles of leadership on

campus. The concept of internal (within a college) development programs was also mentioned

by Ana, who indicated the campus had run an initial pilot leadership program with employees

but had run into issues with selection and sustainability. Mark and Richard noted that their

organization(s) was/were interested in moving forward with project based stretch assignments

for employees as a way to let employees explore different areas of work, retrain, and add value

to work. The concept of adding value to work was something Henry also desired as he looked

for the system to help develop a “maturity in thinking among leaders with a more integrated

system-level thinking.”

As listed in this section, participants identified several benefits (current and anticipated)

and opportunities, supported by the system or at the institutional level, which supported efforts in

succession planning. These benefits and opportunities, along with the examples of these efforts,

are outlined first to establish how they might prepare institutions for upcoming challenges or

roadblocks they do/may face as outlined in the next section.

Succession planning challenges. In an effort to identify what challenges or roadblocks

impacted current efforts as institutions engaged in succession planning the researcher used

responses from several interview questions. Challenges wove into responses as participants

discussed benefits and opportunities, resource needs, the use of the framework, and next steps in

succession planning, thus they emerged as a separate theme. During responses regarding

challenges, those specific to the application of the modified Rothwell framework also emerged

which will be summarized later in analysis of research questions three. As this theme emerged,

120

it became evident to the researcher this was a separate area that should be addressed and that

these challenges had a direct impact on the current efforts of pilot colleges. Broadly speaking,

the challenges addressed here had/have a direct impact on current efforts, but specific examples

of these challenges, as experienced by the participants and their colleges, are also summarized in

research question four which sought to specifically identify what experiences influence a

campus’s ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot program and continue in succession planning

efforts over an extended period of time.

Challenges became the largest section of data to review during the research and analysis

process and as result several codes emerged within the theme which include entrenchment,

resource allocation, leadership transition and turnover, employee workload and capacity,

planning and prioritization, data measures and return on investment, and union contracts. These

challenges align with those introduced earlier in the introduction of this dissertation (p. 11-15)

and literature review, particularly the section on higher education succession planning (p. 38-53).

The perspectives provided by the participants provide additional insight into the impact of these

challenges.

Entrenchment. Entrenchment is a term the researcher will use to describe the challenge

of stagnancy or complacency faced by institutions as they attempt to move succession planning

initiatives forward in the culture of higher education institution. Collectively, all participant

responses further defined this as immobility and a lack of flexibility due to an absence of

understanding, dated career paths and sluggish career mobility, and union influence. In

describing the difference between a complacent versus challenged and motivated employee,

Richard started by describing the higher education environment in the United States:

121

Education is at a major crossroads in how it is delivered. It’s going through a more

radical change that it probably has in 2000 years…what is that going to mean in terms of

what skill set you want to bring to the table from an administrative standpoint or from a

back office standpoint or from an infrastructure standpoint that is going to allow an

institution of higher education thrive and grow over the next 50-100 years that is radically

different than it was 20 years, even 10 year ago. It’s a different animal.

Richard continued to articulate how change management in the higher education environment

was difficult and explained how personnel planning must consider the rapidly changing roles and

responsibilities. Continuing, he emphasized the need for creativity in problem solving,

adaptation, and motivation to support change. The need for creativity was echoed Mark, who

voiced a frustration in trying to work as a system because of the lack of flexibility and inability

to keep up with career paths and positions as they grow and change. Melissa described it by

posing a question, “How do we refresh efforts in succession planning after or when they are

derailed.” The statement reflected a frustration with the continual starting over with new

personnel in leadership roles.

Conceptually there was a challenge voiced about the lack of leadership understanding and

buy-in with regard to succession planning. Unsure of why the resistance existed, Robert noted a

general “why go through the work to do it (succession planning)” because there is a fundamental

lack of understanding of what succession planning really is institutionally and in higher

education. He continued this sentiment stating, “It seems if there is understanding, it’s an

isolated application, done in one area or for one department, but not throughout the organization.

It’s not broadly utilized.”

122

Even terminology around succession planning proved difficult said Melissa, who stated,

that the “lack of understanding and training led institutional leaders to see the work as part of

HR’s job, when what is really needed is peer involvement, ideas, and ongoing support.” Henry

noted, “We know what to do but can’t move forward in an education environment due to the lack

of understanding, proactive thinking, and systems level thinking.”

Career paths in higher education was a concern of Mark, Melissa, Susan, and Richard.

Concerns fell into several categories about the lack of: available opportunities for promotions

and related constraints or hurdles; supervisory experience and ability to manage; and a

performance evaluation processes. Opportunities for promotion and advancement was part of

the previous section, however the reverse was also voiced by Melissa and Richard concerning

the availability and types of opportunities that existed, particularly within individual institutions.

As employees voiced desire for promotion or growth opportunities there was often little

available internally. This led to turnover, Melissa noted, specifically in areas in entry and mid-

level professional positions in areas like student affairs and advising. Both Melissa and Mark

also noticed gauging employee interest in development was also a struggle in some cases as

supervisors lack the knowledge, ability and skill to develop people. Along with Mark and

Melissa, Susan also saw part of the challenge was the ability to establish a consistent process for

employee evaluation that included professional development discussions. The lack of

understanding of how to conduct a comprehensive evaluation processes was chalked up to

several factors: lack of clear processes (Susan), large numbers of direct reports (Melissa), need

for training and support tools for supervisors (Mark and Melissa), and lack of important

documentation (updated position descriptions including defined competencies, previous

evaluations not completed/incomplete, no professional development plans) (Mark and Melissa).

123

From Richard’s perspective, the entire perspective of development needs to change – from

strategy to resource allocation - to build and invest in human capital and capacity.

Financial and human resource investments. This investment was specifically addressed

during the interview process as participants were asked what resource investments (human,

information, financial) had been made (or not made) in developing leaders within your campus

as a result of succession planning. These past and current efforts to allocate (or not) resources

varied widely, however, financial and human resources (time) were noted by all participants as a

challenge to current efforts to prepare for or engage in succession planning. Challenges in regard

to finances and time investments were noted during several interview question responses and

thus results from this and other interview questions are merged in this section.

Financial resources were addressed by all participants, however, proved to be an ongoing

challenge voiced by Susan, Ana, Richard, and Robert as they acknowledged budget cuts and

declining resources (from tuition revenue, state allocation, and fundraising efforts). As Robert

summarized,

Funding changes have led to position cuts which limit the ability to cross train employees

or spend time in activities that support the institution. There is a workload issue as the

capacity and ability of current employees take on more during a cut mode (at the

institution). We’ve been cutting, cutting, cutting and just fill necessary vacancies as

needed so there’s not a lot of excess staffing.

Similarly, Susan and Ana referenced budget concerns that had led to cuts in staffing and

professional development funds. Richard noted even the time allocated to complete professional

development is indirectly a cost because of the cost of cross training or other methods to cover

the work when the individual is allowed time away from work.

124

Funding models varied widely in regard the amount of money allocated toward

succession planning efforts, including professional development activities. Ana noted that some

professional development activities are supported by the union contracts, such as tuition waivers

and guaranteed annual funds per employee (MSCF contract), which are guaranteed for

employees. She stated, “This can be a substantial expense to institutions who are required to pay

for these expenses.” In cases beyond those required contractually, several references were made

to spending on professional development, however only Richard estimated an actual annual

budget amount ($50,000) outside of contract requirements. Mark, Susan, Ana, Richard, and

Claire all noted their institutions had tuition assistance or tuition reimbursement programs for

employees beyond contract requirements. Other examples of spending included professional

memberships (Claire); professional conferences (Claire); system sponsored leadership

development programs (Mark, Ana, and Claire); financial support for credentialing or

certifications in linchpin positions or to retain employees (Susan); and internal leadership

development programs (Mark, Ana, and Richard).

The other most mentioned resource investment was time. Mark, Melissa, Susan, Ana,

Richard, Robert, and Henry all mentioned time as a constraint to accomplishing efforts in

succession planning. In their responses, Mark, Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Robert all discussed

time related to scheduling, prioritization, and workload. “Time is always an issue to get the

leadership team together…We a lot of times run the succession planning meetings without

everyone there which is a challenge,” said Robert. Ana echoed this desire for prioritized time to

meet stating, “Dedicated time is needed to plan this project (succession planning). Time to plan,

time to do the work, and time to see the results, and time to build this as part of our culture. I’m

frustrated because we just don’t have time right now.” Mark noted a similar concern when he

125

brought up the simple lack of time stating, “The workload is already too high and so we can’t

give full attention to succession planning.” The issue of high workload dominated Susan’s

response as she questioned how to even begin to prioritize succession planning in busy

schedules. This included time for HR to plan and define their role as part of the succession

planning process and time to support others in succession planning. As an example, she also

noted the constraints of supervisor’s time who had wide span of control, a high number of direct

reports, and a large depth and breadth of workload. Melissa agreed by adding the workload was

too high and the lack of time to work on succession planning and its elements was a challenge.

She quipped, “I love the concept and understand it’s important, but how can I make time to

actually get to it?”

Along these same lines, Henry noted the capacity of leadership as his institution but even

so, the workload was simply too much. Noting a lack of planning and systematic thinking about

employee development and the inability of leadership to view time as an investment, Henry

acknowledged that, “it takes a lot of investment to go through your positions, to think what are

the skills someone would need, to plan ahead….and that all takes time to document.”

The time of the leadership team, particularly the CHRO was noted as well by Mark and

Richard. “It can’t be just an HR responsibility, HR is overwhelmed already,” Mark said.

Richard spoke of the time of administration and the amount of money that was already invested

stating, “The expense of dedicated staff to find, organize, develop, communicate, and train is

substantial,” he said. Claire echoed this as she spoke of the involvement of high level leadership

in the succession planning project noting, “These are the highest compensated individuals on

campus so that is a lot of money in the room.”

126

Prioritization. The lack of time in an already lean leadership team led participants to

articulate another challenge in their current efforts – the difficulty to prioritize succession

planning. As Susan explained, “the priority given to succession planning at the leadership level

varies and so the competence and accountability related to succession planning activities varies.”

Competing priorities at the institution, specifically at the leadership level and in HR, also meant

immediate needs take precedence over succession planning remarked Mark, Melissa, and Susan.

“We just get bogged down with the day to day work and we’re not able to focus on succession

planning as much as we should,” noted Mark. Melissa had a similar response stating “We

change our priorities due to the latest fires on campus.” Susan asked, “How can we maintain

support and momentum? How can we continue to make it (succession planning) a priority for

leadership? How can we prioritize this with so many other initiatives going on at the college and

system?”

Competing initiatives are an issue for colleges. Examples of system wide initiatives like

HR and finance hubs and charting the future (a system led planning imitative) that impact the

prioritization of work on campus were given by Susan. To Susan, these examples further

demonstrated how outside influences can’t be predicted or planned for but rather how they

sometimes impact the support and momentum for succession planning. Melissa agreed, noting

that “system and college priorities don’t always align and may lead to competing interests.”

Internal examples of competing priorities were also mentioned mention by Mark and

Melissa. Melissa provided examples of unexpected enrollment challenges and funding decreases

which “immediately impact and change the priorities of the institution.” Changing priorities are

also due to “fires” that need to be put out on campus every day noted Melissa. Mark agreed and

again mentioned the need to change from this “transaction nature of work to one that was more

127

transformational.” The need for planning was emphasized repeatedly as a way to prioritize by

Mark, Melisa, Susan, and Richard. Susan looked to planning to help define the stages of

succession planning and develop a process but acknowledged, “Where to start when on each

campus is so different. Pilots are looking for a cookie cutter approach to it (succession planning)

and it just doesn’t work that way.” When referencing the need for planning to help prioritize

work, Melissa put it succinctly stating, “What gets measured is what gets done.”

Establishing clear measures with data. The question of how to prioritize succession

planning with so many other initiatives (planned and unplanned) impacting a lean leadership’s

time remains, as do the issues around how to measure efforts in succession planning to gauge the

impact of these efforts. As challenges were discussed in interviews, several participants eluded

to the need for data and clear measures related to succession planning to make the case for the

effort and investment in succession planning. As such, it became a prompting question from the

researcher if not mentioned by participants to ensure it was addressed by each. All eight

participants indicated they did not have or did not use established measures to gauge the

succession of succession planning efforts, nor did they use data to measure the return on

investment or aid in the furthering of succession planning. The question was why? Susan

detailed how data such as separation analysis and retirement projections were calculated as she

described the difficulty in measuring succession planning because it was “very manual.” She,

along with Mark, Melissa, Susan, and Ana all specifically mentioned the need to calculate return

on investment (ROI) to make the case for sustaining succession planning. Whether that related

to specific efforts, like a leadership development program (Mark), or to broader data on

identified high performers to measure promotions and job changes through the system (Ana), all

five agreed that measurements were needed, however no one actually calculated it. Robert,

128

Claire, and Henry indicated that there had not been any discussion on data, measurement tools,

or ROI as a result of succession planning at the institutional level. Mark mentioned how difficult

it was to make the cost of engaging (or not) in succession planning tangible because “there was

no immediate cost to pushing succession planning activities to the back burner.” Melissa noted

there was no data available to reference and that the lack of data, especially for comparative

purposes, was a problem. “We’re doing leadership development but we don’t have a great way

to measure it. We need to create measurements so we can assess what we are doing,” she stated.

The question of what measurements to use seemed somewhat elusive to participants.

Richard focused on the need for measurements tied to strategic goals and the strategic plan. He

described the need for a dashboard or tracking mechanism to provide clarity and understanding

but was unable to articulate what those measure should be. Ana described a future goal of her

institution was to “measure promotions, job changes, and involvement in training and

professional development,” but at the point of this interview and into the foreseeable future did

not see how these could be created or collected. Mark felt that the lack of documentation and

measures made it difficult to formalize processes around succession planning and that “without

good data it was hard to move forward.” He also noted this as a flaw in the succession planning

model from the system stating, “The model does not help with forecasting. It’s a struggle to

assess and then use data to forecast things that make a difference in succession planning.”

Maintaining momentum in turnover. The concept of moving forward and making a

difference threads into the next challenge articulated by participants in the study. Momentum

was important to Robert, who spoke of the time it takes to build knowledge and energy around

succession planning each time there are changes in leadership. Susan indicated frustration in a

similar way, noting, “Although there is no cookie cutter approach to succession planning, it’s

129

important to define the stages of the process and be on the same page internally because each

campus is so unique in their approach. But each time we have turnover, in all forms, it impacts

momentum…and the waiting time to ramp up seems to stall out the efforts.” Robert called for

leadership to “practice what they preach” as they had talked about succession planning

techniques but had yet “to do anything to actually operationalized anything to support it.”

Turnover was a challenge all participants mentioned in their responses. Participants

spoke about the impact of turnover at the system level, including the Chancellor and several vice

chancellors, and at the college level including college presidents, c-suite employees and deans.

All found it very concerning in relation to succession planning. Melissa noted, “Turnover at

high levels leads to more time, a lack of understanding about the people, lost institutional

knowledge, and lost history. Changing presidents changes priorities and impacts succession

planning.”

The “restarts” from leadership transition and turnover noted by Melissa were echoed by

others. Claire noted the example that when a linchpin position, like the CHRO leave, the work is

not continued. “Turnover in key positions that were part of the succession planning team has an

impact. Succession planning efforts are stalled or discontinued because they were not

institutionalized.” Mark shared the same sentiment, “leadership transition leads to changing

leadership styles with stops and starts in the process and no consistency.” Susan voiced the same

concern, “Efforts are stalled due to high level employee turnover. Then we have to ramp up new

people in positions. We are in a tough spot. Are we investing in people and training them to

leave us? If we don’t (train them), will they leave?” A good question in a very competitive job

market for talent, which Mark, Melissa, Richard, and Robert also mentioned as a challenge

related to turnover.

130

Union impact. A final challenge identified and one specific to the state in which this

research was conducted focuses on the impact of several unions within the college environment.

All participants indicated they were familiar with and utilize the current contracts for one or

more unions based on the nature of their current or past positions. Based on the efforts around

succession planning at each college up to the point of this research, participants had varying

levels of engagement with the union. Melissa, Ana, and Richard specifically noted the lack of

flexibility within the contracts to reward employees with formal and informal advancements

based on performance. All of the union contracts (MSCF, MMA, MAPE, AFSCME) and plans

(Commissioner’s plan, Managerial plan, Administrator plan) do not allow for advancement

based on performance and have limited availability for performance based rewards.

This awareness of the constraints within the union contract also led Mark, Melissa,

Susan, and Claire to question how they could use succession planning and its tools in such an

environment. “I think there is a whole lack of understanding of what succession planning is and

how to move forward in a public education environment. We have to reach that balance of

affirmative action hiring and growing our own people. I think as budgets continue to tighten we

just have less people (to do the work),” stated Susan. Mark noted the confines he felt, “As a state

system we can’t pick or groom people for certain jobs like in the private industry.” Ana spoke

about the locked language of the union contracts which made it hard to try new things or let new

people in try different positions. “It can be prohibitive. Collective bargaining agreements don’t

encourage people to move from one position to another easily using stretch assignments or

shadowing. They (contracts) are clunky and prohibitive.”

As a public institution, “transparency is key to working with the unions,” Robert said.

Susan explored the concept of “grow your own,” as she questioned how to do that without

131

alienating employees that aren’t selected for development programs, stretch assignments, or

internal positions. “How do we select individuals for opportunities without “picking them’-

without the perception of favoritism?” asked Susan. She also questioned how to work through

the gossip and myth that is spread through the grapevine about this same perceptions. Speaking

on ongoing union resistance, Melissa struggled with how to approach succession planning,

collaborate, and align efforts with the union noting that it was a “reason for the delay in

implementation and impact of succession planning.” Citing an example of a grievance filed,

Melissa noted the pushback from the union stating, “There was a feeling we were giving

preferential treatment to some workers. In retrospect we probably should have met with them

(unions) first to talk about the things we were thinking about doing.” However, from the

opposite perspective, Claire spoke more positively of her own experience in succession planning

and his/her ability to combat union resistance stating, “We did not pick individuals for positions

or leadership development opportunities but let them identify themselves. We took a very open

approach, all were welcome, and used position roadmaps to help people prepare for positions.”

In this section the researcher has examined and summarized the participant responses

related to research question two: How do the current efforts of the pilot colleges (supported by

the system) prepare institutions for the leadership crisis in higher education? The researcher has

summarized the responses from participants to highlight the benefits or opportunities

experienced by participants and their institutions and aligned those to the benefits and

opportunities presented in the literature review. The researcher further sought to establish if

participants had found value in participating in succession planning at their institution and

explore what participants saw as benefits and/or opportunities for their institution as a part of the

system succession planning pilot. Finally, the researcher sought to discover what challenges or

132

roadblocks were experienced by the participants and their institutions as they implemented

succession planning, including any presented as part of the system pilot program. These

challenges include many of the same challenges brought forward in the literature review.

Framework utilization – Research question three. Research question three focused

specifically on the modified Rothwell framework and asked how the modified and adopted

framework had been utilized and/or implemented within the college environment. The

succession planning framework refers to the adapted framework highlighted on page 65 of the

literature review. This framework, adopted by the MnSCU system, is an adapted version from

William Rothwell’s (2005) book, Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership

Continuity and Building Talent From Within. In preparing the interview questions to support

this research question, the researcher began by asking how participants had engaged in

succession planning in their institutions so far and prompted specifically about the steps of the

succession planning framework and whether or not they had been applied as part of the process

in interview question two. The framework (as pictured in the literature review on page 65) was

shown, either in paper or electronic format, to each participant to ensure mutual understanding of

the reference to the framework in question.

Interview questions specifically addressed the framework by seeking to understand what

challenges or roadblocks had been experienced in applying the modified framework of

succession planning at the individual institution. This led to participants articulating what was

working/had worked as part of the adoption of the framework and responses about which

elements they had been using or planned to use. As participants described their short and long

term goals related to succession planning as part of interview question responses, the framework

and its steps were also repeatedly referenced. The frameworks value (or not) was also referenced

133

in interview question seven as participants provided advice and recommendations to other

colleges moving forward.

This line of questioning during the interview process sought to understand if the model

was actually utilized, how it was applied in real-life, and whether or not it added value to the

adoption and implementation of succession planning within the institutions. Because specific

uses and challenges related to the implementation of the modified Rothwell framework were

addressed holistically and at each step, this provides important and specific information about the

model’s applicability in two year colleges. By focusing on each step of the framework in

responses from participants, the framework’s applicability with in the institutions will also be

qualitatively established.

Framework utilization. When asked if the framework was referenced or utilized as part

of succession planning, six of eight participants responded affirmatively. The other two

participants, Mark and Richard, were from the same institution and so their responses aligned

that the framework had not been utilized. When the participants who did not utilize the model or

framework were asked why, Mark stated, “Its not a one size fits all model. I struggle with what

to use, how to use it…some areas have too much detail and some are too broad. We need to

narrow down and focus.”

The degree of utilization among the other participants, however, varied widely. Claire

indicated a familiarity with the Rothwell model in its original form (for business and industry)

but was not familiar with the adaptation of the framework to higher education until the MnSCU

system modified, adopted, and shared resources related to succession planning. All other

participants were not familiar with the model until exposure to the concept, framework, and

134

toolkit were made through system level contacts in talent management, human resources, or

academic affairs. Comments about the framework were generally positive and included:

- “The framework is a big picture model. It gives a how and where to start. It’s a good

model. It is continuous, circles back, you can go out of order, and handle critical

pieces first” (Melissa).

- “The framework and model are a good starting point. You can deviate as needed”

(Robert).

- “I recognize the benefit of the model and putting time into each of the steps” (Ana).

As interviews continued, participants were prompted to include more detail in their

responses in regard to what steps of the framework were followed and what tools within each

step had been/continue to be utilized as part of the succession planning process. The following

sections will outline the steps of the framework, include a brief description of the purpose and

tools within the identified step as found on the MnSCU Succession Planning website (2015), and

present participant responses organized around each step.

Step 1: Identify Purpose/Goals/Objectives. Step 1 of the framework is designed to help

institutions secure support and identify key objectives by identifying the value of allocating

resources to succession planning, creating awareness and commitment, and identifying linchpin

positions (MnSCU, 2015). The tools associated with this step include a succession planning

communication plan, project charter template, readiness checklist, succession planning position

assessment template, and risk analysis template (MnSCU 2015).

Participants approach step one in a variety of ways. Melissa and Ana indicated they had

utilized all of the step one resources including the charter, checklist, position assessment, and

risk assessment templates. Nonetheless, Ana did doubt the importance of the charter, indicating

135

it was difficult to use and questioning the practicality of the tool. This widespread use and

adoption of the tools was not prevalent among other participants, however, as each indicated they

used/referenced tools as needed. The project charter and risk analysis templates were highly

utilized tools within step one. Melissa, Susan, Ana, Robert, Claire, and Henry responded that

they had used and were familiar with the project charter template. Claire noted the charter was a

“good way for the project team to lay out what we wanted to do and move forward.” Henry

thought the charter was a “way to articulate what the project was, what the outcomes,

deliverables, and timeline were, and a way to build a work plan.”

Others saw the charter template as a guide. Robert and Claire noted that they used the

charter template but modified it to meet their own needs. Robert commented, “We developed a

draft charter but used it as a place to start and get a few things down. (We) review it continually

and tweak it. (We) build on it and make it a fluid document.” This concept of the charter as an

ongoing reference point and fluid document was reflected in other participant responses during

the interview process as well. Susan concluded, “The charter focused on the end result before

you know where you’re going and reflects differing opinions. We used other pilot examples.

We view the charter as an ongoing document (that) provides focus and context.”

Within this step, those who utilized the charter all requested or required input from their

respective leadership teams. As noted earlier in this chapter, the positions that make up the

leadership teams within each institution vary somewhat from institution to institution, however,

Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Robert all indicated the charter was specifically used with their

leadership teams. Claire’s approach varied slightly as the institution where she work(s/ed)

created a project team comprised of many of individuals on the executive leadership team but

inclusive of other internal institutional stakeholders who could move the project forward.

136

The other most commonly used tool in this step was the risk analysis template. This

template and its corresponding definitions outline the risk factors associated with a specific

position including financial, legal, safety, and business continuity factors. The template includes

a variety of expertise areas (subject matter, college, and MnSCU) and then assigns an overall risk

factor to the position. The template also examines the succession need and capacity of the

position and can include succession operational needs and specific candidates. This

comprehensive assessment of risk and its use was discussed by Melissa, Susan, Ana, Robert,

Claire, and Henry. Because the template is available in a spreadsheet format, participants often

referred to it as the “risk spreadsheet” or just “the spreadsheet.” After clarifying the researcher

noted this reference and carried this through the coding process. In reference to the risk

assessment, Susan, Ana, Richard, and Robert described how and why the tool was used during

their responses. Robert specifically described the process, “(We) utilized a modified risk

assessment to build a spreadsheet with prioritized positions that were identified as linchpin.”

This approach reflected the use of the risk assessment tool to identify linchpin positions.

Melissa, Susan, Ana, Robert, Claire, and Henry responded affirmatively to using the risk

assessment tool included some reference to linchpin positions. Richard indicated he used the

tool to identify and then prioritize linchpin positions, while Susan referenced a survey to identify

linchpin positions. Ana took a different approach and provided a list of all direct reports and

after completing the tool defined those with highest risk as linchpin. The reader may recall that a

2010 study done as part of a Luoma Leadership Academy expanded the MnSCU definition of a

linchpin position to include presidents and c-suite positions as well as those with title such as

dean and directors in positions throughout the college.

137

Ana described the use of the risk assessment tool with all senior level (c-suite) managers

to identify linchpin positions with their departments using a high, medium, low risk score. “The

differences in leadership style and knowledge was evident through their (each senior level

manager) engagement and progress in the process. The varied skill in leadership to address the

position needs showed us that we need to build a base knowledge with leadership.” To

accomplish this, the CHRO and champion at the college met with each c-suite leadership

individual to go through the risk assessment and assist in defining and then identifying linchpin

positions within each leader’s reports/employees.

Susan indicated her institution approached the risk assessment a little differently. Rather

than having linchpin positions identified through the risk assessment tool Susan utilized a survey

with the leadership group that came from the President to identify the linchpin positions. The

leadership group then proceeded to complete the spreadsheet analysis together using a

numbering system (1-5) to indicate risk rather than a high, medium, low ranking. Richard also

noted the use of a high, medium, low approach to ranking rather than a numbered scoring

system.

As the project charter was completed and linchpin positions were identified as part of

step one, Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Richard referenced their use of the discussion questions,

articles, checklists, and FAQ documents which supported the purpose of the step. These

resources were utilized as needed on a continual basis from the system succession planning

webpage. The work of defining the project and its scope and identifying linchpin positions

accomplished in Step 1 is deemed important to complete in the framework before moving into

Step 2, which defines the competencies for identified linchpin positions, however Melissa,

Susan, and Ana did not delineate between the steps as they indicated moving between them

138

without noting any difference. This indicated to the researcher that the defined nature of the

steps were not part of actual use and/or implementation but rather that users moved between the

steps as needed to move efforts forward.

Step 2: Define Competencies. Step 2 of the MnSCU (2015) modified framework focuses

on defining the knowledge, skill, ability, and personal competencies associated with each

linchpin position as identified by the institution. By providing clarity around the expectations of

roles and responsibilities within each linchpin position, institutions are then able to assess high

potential and high performing individuals to accelerate development (MnSCU, 2015). This step

is a supportive step in that it assists with the development and implementation of steps 3, 4, and

5. Reference tools used in this step include the defined MnSCU leadership competencies

(Appendix A) and samples of entry and higher level technical competencies for use in defining

linchpin position competencies. These position competencies and their format, characteristics,

and function are further defined on pages 60-62 in the literature review section of this

dissertation.

As the interviews proceeded, fewer participants were able to respond with detail on how

positions were defined in order to assess individuals as part of step 2. Those that did address

step 2 specifically were Susan, Richard, Robert, and Claire. Susan indicated her institution had

just begun work to define leadership and technical competencies in the linchpin positions

identified as part of step one. Richard indicated that his institution had identified its linchpin

positions and described how they were now working to define these key positions with

competencies and skills in order to track, assess, and modify positions. Robert referenced a

survey done with the leadership team to define critical tasks and which was then used to

prioritize positions for action and next steps. Institutionally Robert indicated this was as far as

139

the activity had progressed, however, he noted a supplemental position mapping strategy being

used in the IT area of the college. This separate activity was done to help identify and map out

how to cover linchpin positions to assist in recover and continuity of operations planning and had

been shared as an example with the leadership team.

The most robust response related to step 2 was from Claire. Led by the CHRO, this

institution had embarked on a project to create a position roadmap for all identified linchpin

positions. This position roadmap was a template of each linchpin position with defined

behavioral and technical competencies used to give employees a visual outline (map) of what

was needed in a particular position. The position roadmaps were then used to identify ways to

pursue a particular position through development strategies specific to the competencies of that

position.

Participants Melissa, Ana, and Henry did not address this step in their responses but

instead moved in to describing the activities embarked upon in step 3. Mark did not address any

further steps of the model citing a “lack of supervisor ability to understand and apply the tools in

the toolkit at this time.” When asked about the steps of the framework, Mark indicated that

specific pieces of the toolkit had been or were being used, particularly those related to employee

development opportunities and training based on performance needs, but that overall the

institution did not reference or follow the model.

Step 3: Assess Employee Performance/Potential. Step 3 involves using documentation

and data sources to assess employee performance and potential to prepare employees for

succession planning efforts. To assess each employee’s current and future potential the focus of

this step is to design and implement a process of evaluation in order to support decision making

in steps 4 and 5 (MnSCU, 2015). Tools referenced within this step include a guide to conducting

140

succession performance evaluation; sample staff, faculty, and leadership evaluation forms; a

leadership competency rating grid; and a nine-block leadership talent grid with development

actions (MnSCU, 2015).

Performance evaluation to develop employees was addressed during the interview

process by all participants except Robert, however the methods, consistency of use, and purpose

of use varied greatly. Mark spoke of a robust internal leadership development program for

potential leaders with an overall high percentage of evaluation completion (by supervisors) at all

levels. He noted the institution had approached this more from a holistic leadership development

approach rather than with intentionality to develop any one individual specifically for accelerated

development. He indicated that supervisors did at minimum annually discuss professional

development with employees as part of the evaluation process. Ana also spoke of a leadership

development program pilot that included training and development for supervisors on conducting

performance evaluation and assessment. She hoped this would increase the completion rates

evaluations and the value they brought to employees.

Melissa, Susan, Ana, and Claire called out a common theme related to performance

evaluation and assessment, noting that it was a work in progress. “We are working on this now.

There is a high completion rate of evaluations but it is not consistent and integrated with

development and growth. (We) need to increase the value of the tools. (We) need to complete

these to look at ways to accelerate development,” said Susan. On the same note Claire stated,

“(We) need to rework performance assessment tools to include succession planning elements that

allow employees to identify their interests and communicate this with supervisors.”

The idea of supervisor knowledge and involvement was not lost on Melissa who shared

evaluation completion rates of staff were at 65%, full-time faculty at 84%, and part-time faculty

141

at less than 50%. She stated, “This is a key role of supervisors – knowledge, ability and skills at

developing people. We need to design an evaluation system to support succession planning.”

Henry agreed noting the need to build an evaluation plan into the initial design with useful data

collection. He questioned, “How many future job openings in high priority areas have internal

candidates? Are we building the internal pool we need?” Melissa noted a similar need to

“assess where talent is and develop organization talent matching skills to work with different

experiences and with mobility.”

Overall this seemed to be the step where participants began to note difficulty, indicating

they were working on this step, or had stalled out at this step. Only Melissa specifically

referenced the use of the nine-block talent grid, a tool included in this step. However, when

speaking about developing performance evaluation, Melissa, Susan, and Ana noted use of

modified templates available from the MnSCU system website.

As interviews progressed, responses about specific actions, activities, or tools utilized did

not fall into the remaining steps of the succession planning framework. The researcher will

outline each of the remaining steps below for the reader to review and assess but note that there

were no response from participants about the steps during the interview process.

Step 4-7 of the Modified Framework. Step 4 focuses on identifying and communicating

with the employees (candidates) about development into linchpin positions to notify them and

confirm their interest and to develop and implement a communication plan with key stakeholders

related to this position (MnSCU, 2015). Tools provided within this step include an acceleration

pool nomination form, succession planning supervisor notification form, a succession planning

candidate notification form, and a sponsor and candidate leadership development commitment

outline (MnSCU, 2015).

142

Step 5 uses the assessment from previous steps related to the employee to build an

accelerated individual development plan to address gaps in knowledge, skills, or experience the

potential candidate may have (MnSCU, 2015). The recommended approach for the framework

is a 70/20/10 approach that includes approximately 70% experience based development; 20%

coaching, mentoring and networking; and 10% formal education (degree completion and/or

development programs) (MnSCU, 2015). Tools within this step reference resources that exist in

and outside the system such as the MnSCU leadership development programs described in the

literature review and regional and national leadership development programs. Other tools

include leadership competency self-assessment tools, referrals to coaching and mentoring

programs, and a nine-block leadership talent grid with development actions (MnSCU, 2015).

Each tool is selected to help prepare the employee to successfully compete for positions

identified as linchpin within the succession planning effort.

Step 6 involves creating practices and systems the build sustainable support for

succession planning. This includes resource support, processes for moving prepared employees

into linchpin position more effectively, and creating communications that support ongoing talent

management efforts (MnSCU, 2015). No specific tools exist within this step but rather other

models, articles, and practices are referenced and provided to assist institutions in making

succession planning a cultural norm and sustainable practice on their campuses.

Step 7 is evaluative and supports process improvement and capacity building within the

institution. This practice of evaluation measures if objectives and measures set by the institution

in the beginning of the process were met and studies the impact of the process on the institution

(MnSCU, 2015). In a process that is ongoing and reflective the institution can understand and

make decisions that support succession planning efforts (MnSCU, 2015).

143

Research question three focused specifically on the modified Rothwell framework and its

implementation and utilization at institutions. Overall institutions were familiar with the

framework and the toolkit, but familiarity did not indicate use or adoption of all steps or

resources and tools within each step. Rather, the framework became a reference or starting point

and thus participants indicated they created, modified, or leveraged the tools within the

framework to apply them to their own institution. Robert summarized his thoughts, “We created

our own tools using technology to survey and gain information from leadership about what they

felt and its purpose. We leveraged tools in the framework and tried to apply them, see how they

applied at our institution.” This type of modified adoption was also noted by Mark, Melissa, and

Ana.

The applicability of this modified framework and its impact on an institutions ability to

engage in or sustain succession planning efforts was explored as part of this research question as

well. Overall, participants and their institutions seemed to struggle with building understanding

around the framework with leadership teams and deploying the steps of the framework. The

responses did provide examples of how the framework was applied in the initial steps, however,

the remaining steps (4-7) and the corresponding activities and resources within those steps were

unfamiliar to participants.

Succession planning sustainability - Research question four. Research question four

sought to understand what experiences influence a campus’s ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot

program and continue in succession planning efforts over an extended period of time. The

researcher primarily used three interview questions to support this research question and began

by asking about the resource investments (human, information, financial) that had been made (or

144

not made) in developing leaders within the institution to understand if resources discussed had

impact on the sustainability of succession planning over time.

Next the researcher sought to draw out the short and long term plans of each participant

and their institution by asking about next steps in succession planning. Participants did not relate

their responses specifically to the steps in the framework or next steps in efforts but rather in

terms of upcoming goals so a follow-up question was asked. This follow up question sought to

discover if there were any specific goals the institution had set related to succession planning.

This series of responses sought to understand how the institution planned to move forward in

succession planning, whether current efforts were sustainable, and if there was intention to

continue in succession planning.

Finally, the researcher asked what advice or recommendations the participants had for

other institutions embarking on a succession planning initiative. By articulating specific

recommendations for other institutions the researcher was able to frame what experiences

influenced the participant and institutions ability to progress and what efforts “paid off” in terms

of ability to continue in succession planning. Many of these experiences articulated in

participant responses act as lessons learned for other institutions as well which may be helpful in

decision making around succession planning initiatives.

Holistically these responses can help determine what experiences can/might/do influence

a college’s ability to utilize succession planning and what impacts the sustainability of

succession in the short and long term. Specific factors regarding the impact these experiences on

the progress and sustainability of succession planning were outlined in the literature review and

include communication, commitment, continuous improvement, and culture (p. 74). Note the

commonality between the participant responses and these factors in the sections below, adding to

145

the qualitative evidence that these factors impact the progress and sustainability of succession

planning.

Resource investments. When asked about the resource investments (human, information,

financial) that had been made (or not made) in developing leaders within the institution

participants focused primarily on the time spent by leadership in succession planning activities.

Time allocated by these individuals was not equated to dollars and cents but still seen as a

primary investment in efforts surrounding succession planning. Mark and Ana specifically

mentioned the time of employees and supervisors in the succession planning process and its

related activities, noting that internal investments in programming and training all came at a cost

to the institution. Richard was adamant this was a large investment and stated:

From a supervisory perspective there is a lot of time involved in succession planning.

The personnel time, especially the leadership team and the CHRO, takes dedicated staff

to find, organize, develop, communicate, and train employees. Time allocated to

complete professional development is also costly. Time at conferences, in courses, for

travel and so on and then time to cross train to allow time away…all have cost.

The cost associated with time was also echoed by participants Mark, Melissa, Susan,

Ana, Richard, and Claire who wanted the researcher to understand that resources discussed had

impact on the sustainability of succession planning over time. All mentioned the time of

administration in meetings about succession planning, with Melissa, Ana, Richard, and Claire

specifically naming the CHRO investment of time as vital. Claire stated, “The involvement of

the highest level leadership in the project is the time of the highest compensated individuals in

the institution. The commitment of the CHRO is critical.”

146

When asked specifically about budgets and a financial investment in succession planning

the most common response was tuition assistance, mentioned by Susan, Ana, Richard, and

Claire. Note that each union contract or plan handles tuition assistance differently. (See

literature review for explanation of each union included as part of the two-year college

environment within the system including MSCF, MAPE, MMA, AFSCME, Personnel Plan,

Managerial Plan, and Commissioner’s Plan.) Participants all noted a tuition waiver, which is

available to all employees with varied use restrictions, while others Susan, Richard, and Claire

noted covering tuition for individuals beyond what is contractual or in additional to union

contract requirements. Susan expanded on the use of funds to support tuition assistance and

waivers when describing financial support for individuals to achieve credentialing in specific,

hard to fill, positions, “We need to develop a skill set or work to grow our own for difficult

positions to fill like nursing faculty so financial support for credentialing in these areas is

important.” No exact dollar amounts of tuition waiver or assistance were given during the

interview process.

Other budget related items mentioned during the interview process were professional

memberships (Claire), established professional development cost centers for college and

departmental use (Ana and Richard), conference attendance (Claire), and the Luoma Leadership

Academy (Ana and Claire). Mark, Melissa, Ana, and Richard also briefly spoke about internal

leadership development programs on their campuses with budgets ranging from approximately

$4000 (Ana) to $50,000 (Richard).

The discussion around resources had an additional unique response from Henry who

looked for a more strategic approach to investment. “It is a role or job as an employee

development person on campus. I think all position descriptions should include succession

147

planning components for development.” The idea to include succession planning components in

leadership position descriptions and to have a position dedicated to employee development was

not something any participant noted existed, but rather Henry felt would be a necessary step in

moving succession planning efforts forward. The focus of these steps or goals to move

succession planning efforts forward is the focus of the next section.

Short and long term goals in succession planning. To further understand what

experiences or activities influenced sustainability in succession planning over time, participants

were asked about their next steps in succession planning. Initial responses from participants

focused primarily on activities with light reference to process related next steps that may or may

not have included steps in the modified framework. As a result of these initial responses and to

further clarify what next steps were planned, a follow-up question was asked about the goals the

institution had related to succession planning in the short and long term. Responses were coded

into short term goals, defined as set or achievable in the next year, and long term, defined as set

or achievable in the next two-five years.

Short term goals. Short term goals dominated the responses from participants.

Responses were coded into three focus areas in the short term responses which included: hiring

and retention of employees; design or redesign of position descriptions, evaluations, and

professional development opportunities; and organizational structure and support which included

data collection practices and the use of measures.

Hiring and retention was coded to include all the activities and processes related to the

employee selection process and the retention efforts aimed at keeping or retaining current

employees. Richard outlined his desire clearly stating, “We need to mitigate risk in hiring –

recruiting, advertising, word of mouth, and search committees – and hire to fill our weaknesses

148

and gaps.” He also noted the importance of hiring and retaining racial and ethnically diverse

employees to add perspective to the institution. To accomplish this Richard wanted to “use

position assessments to fill positions that are designed to fill current and future needs rather than

past needs. We need to redesign positions with flexibility so we can hire skill sets for the

future.”

This desire to redesign, update, or create position descriptions was prevalent in responses

from Melissa, Susan, Ana, Richard, Robert, and Henry. Melissa sought to create position

descriptions for all positions and increase the completion rate of evaluations and performance

reviews to 100% for all employees. Henry indicated the same stating, “we need to go through

positions that are linchpin and vulnerable and create guides to positions.” He hoped this would

directly impact the value of performance evaluations.

Going through positions was part of several other participants’ short term goals. Robert

noted the need to “identify crucial skills in positions and compile them for review by the

leadership team.” Susan indicated the intention at her institution was to “use defined

competencies from MnSCU to guide employee development with assessment and growth

opportunities worked into performance evaluation.” (These referenced leadership competencies

can be found in chapter two on pages 69-70 and in Appendix A). She also indicated they (her

college) would need to “create a consistent process to support supervisors in working with

employees on professional development planning.” Ana was more specific in her response as it

related to the modified framework and noted, “We need to work on step three, move into step

four – accelerate development, tailor training, and create stretch and interim assignments for

internal leaders. We also need to continue to expand and revitalize an internal leadership

149

training program.” Melissa also referred to the framework when indicating a desire to review

and complete the risk factor analysis spreadsheet with deans and supervisors as a short term goal.

Organizational structure and support also emerged as a short term goal for Melissa,

Susan, Ana, Richard, Robert and Henry. This theme emerged from short term goal responses

and includes the physical organizational structure that exists (or not) within the institution and

the measures or mechanisms that are desired to create processes around succession planning.

Specifically addressing organizational structure, Richard called for a “departmental structure

with clear reporting to help support efforts in succession planning.” Robert referred to a recent

system wide structural change, internally referred to as charting the future, and wondered if it the

efforts would continue, noting the need to build and sustain momentum both at a system and

campus level if it was going to succeed. Ana echoed the need for focus and stated, “We need to

refocus and evaluate our own workforce internally (referring to campus and system based

efforts). I mean we’ve got great people right here if we can develop them. That is cost effective,

it increases morale, and it increases employee engagement.” Melissa noted the same need and

sought to further identify clear purpose and goals around succession planning. She added, “right

now it’s like we’re throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks. We’re doing leadership

development activities but we don’t have a great way to measure what’s working.”

This concept of measurement resonated clearly with participants who spoke about the

need for clear measures to document need, progress, and results related to succession planning

(Melissa, Susan, Ana, Robert and Henry). “There is a need to building evaluation planning into

the initial design (of succession planning) and to collect data. This would be a project

management approach with clear milestones,” stated Henry. Melissa and Susan both spoke of

evidence through data to measure and assess the return on investment of succession planning

150

initiatives. Susan looked to then “create and utilize a broader communication plan college-wide

about succession planning efforts that includes intent, updates, and information for employees.”

Long term goals. Long term goals were defined as those set to be accomplished in a two-

five year time frame. Two of the three participants who addressed this in response to the probing

interview question articulated clear steps or ideas in moving succession planning forward

(Melissa and Richard). Ana noted a general desire in the long term to “complete the succession

planning framework with the toolkit and move into continuous improvement to evaluate and start

next cycle.” Richard clearly noted a focus to “get creative” in the approach to succession

planning noting a desire to find ways to “identify stretch assignments, work out of class, modify

compensation and reward systems to operationalize succession planning.”

Melissa approached the response to long term goals with the most detail. Her desire to

tie organizational structure to succession planning and succession planning to the institutional

strategic plan was clear as she described the concept to “develop a plan for solid talent at every

level of the college with individualized personal growth opportunities.” This plan included first

identifying linchpin positions and creating retention strategies for employees that would build a

bench of talent in the long term. Noting the desire to build in measures to evaluate progress, she

also articulated the need to “learn to work with a new generation of employees to understand

employee mobility and generational differences in employees.” In addition to developing talent

within the college, Melissa also saw the need to develop talent in the system stating, “We need to

make sure we develop our talent here, whether for us or the system. We believe it’s a wise

investment because we’ve seen more turnover in the last five years than in our whole

organizational history.”

151

This series of responses on short and long term goals related to succession planning is

telling to the researcher. The long term philosophy for managing succession planning shared by

Melissa in the above paragraph was not prevalent among participant responses. The stronger

focus on short term goals may demonstrate an approach to moving forward in succession

planning that is incremental but that lacks integration into strategic planning (at a departmental

or college level). Sustainability is key to institutionalizing the benefits succession planning,

which does require significant investment in process and people, particularly in development

stages (Rothwell, 2010). With significant leadership turnover in higher education (ACE, 2012;

Cook & Kim, 2012) this investment is even more necessary as processes that are integrated and

adopted institutionally can withstand turnover (Rothwell, 2012). However, as reflected in

participant responses, many do not have any goals in place long term to keep efforts moving

forward or to complete the cycle of the framework.

Advice and recommendations. In an effort to uncover what experiences had influenced

the sustainability of succession planning, the researcher asked participants about what advice

they would give to colleges thinking about or beginning efforts in succession planning.

Participants own responses revealed how their experiences had impacted their ability to engage

in, implement, and continuously improve in succession planning. The advice outlined in the

following section includes examples of what did and did not work for participants, thus revealing

what influenced their own progress or ability to sustain efforts in succession planning.

During the analysis process several categories emerged in responses that reflect the

importance of on-going positive experiences (momentum), the desire for succession planning to

be part of future outcomes, and the need to acknowledge past challenges yet not let them thwart

future opportunities. These categories also reflect advice and recommendations in four main

152

categories from both the system and college and include: leadership support and commitment;

resources and tools; communication; and planning.

Leadership support and commitment. Within the leadership support and commitment

category there were several recommendations that emerged. The first was the need for both the

engagement and support of presidents and executive leadership team members were specifically

noted as critical. Henry voiced that the “president and senior leadership team must be fully

committed.” Melissa agreed noting that “succession planning needs support from the leadership

team, peers, committees, and the champion. We can’t rely on one person.” Ana indicated that

“securing presidential and executive leadership team support up front” was imperative to efforts

moving forward. She recommended that at least two individuals from different areas of the

college were needed to lead the efforts and that they should be from high level leadership

positions. Mark spoke about the strong influence that president leadership style and support

plays in moving succession planning efforts forward and acculturating it to the institution. This

advice aligns with Kotter’s (2007) recommendation that an organization can create a culture of

leadership with consistent commitment by leaders to develop people into leaders.

The concept of engraining succession planning into the culture of the institution is

another recommendation supported by Mark, Ana, and Henry. Mark clearly stated how

important it was to “build a collaborative culture with responsibility and accountability that had

input and supported employees.” Ana agreed that it must be part of the institutional culture. To

do this she suggested that “you instill in employees, supervisors, managers, and leadership that

we’re (the college) hoping that you continue on and succeed for many years at this institution.”

Since higher education has a unique culture that incorporates the principles of involvement,

development, and shared governance (Borden, 2010; Davis, 2008; Richards, 2009), this

153

recommendation to incorporate succession planning elements into culture to ensure sustainability

is also validated by research in the literature review.

The final recommendation tied to this category is about the level of understanding and

knowledge about succession planning that exists within leadership. “(We) need to teach the

team about succession planning and utilize existing research to have conversations and

discussions to move forward,” stated Henry. “You have or can build talent on leadership teams

to have expertise and you can use that talent to move forward.” Melissa supported this concept

as she called for executive leadership and the college president to take the time needed to expand

their knowledge and understanding of what succession planning is. Ana recommended building

knowledge base in leadership of what succession planning is and to “provide campus leadership

and HR departments with formal training.” She commented that:

I really had to spend a lot of time just going through all the information to get my head

around it because I haven’t been trained or had any courses on succession planning or

anything like that. So I think it’s useful to go through the whole process to understand

what you’re getting in to. This is what you’re going to be selling the rest of your

leadership group.

This issue of time, as noted in the quote above, is what originally led the researcher to

consider the capacity of individuals and institutions to take on additional work load as its own

category. However, after further coding and examination of specific responses, this category

was merged with three other categories. In review of comments related to institutional culture

the researcher noted these closely aligned with the leadership commitment category because of

the influence of leadership on culture development and sustainability. Comments regarding the

capacity of workload, need for dedicated human resources, and desire for financial commitment

154

were merged into the resources category of responses. Finally, responses about creative use of

time, inclusiveness of college planning processes, and individual and departmental expectations

and accountability were merged with the planning category as they reflected a similar tone or

desire to set clear strategic and operation direction.

Resources and support. The next category of recommendations from participants

focused on the use (or not) of resources from the system office, institution, or individuals. From

the system perspective advice focused primarily on the availability of training and professional

development and use of framework with toolkit. Henry noted that “it’s useful to have lots of

these tools that you can just take and modify and run with as well as steps in a conceptual model.

Models, tools, and templates are available so you don’t have to recreate.” Claire agreed that,

“we don’t have to reinvent the wheel, just use what is there.” Melissa and Ana also both noted

how they learned to use the tools in the available toolkit and shared them with other members of

their leadership teams hoping they would use them too.

But not all participants felt they had clear direction or knew how to use and implement

the tools. For example, Melissa, Ana, and Henry indicated they still wanted to learn more and

expand their knowledge about succession planning. Susan spoke about her experience noting

that “it’s hard to know how to get started…where to start. You have to take the time to learn,

review the toolkit, and bring it all together. Learn together.”

During these responses specific tools within the toolkit including identifying linchpin

positions, conducting the risk assessment (template), and performance assessment and

evaluations were identified as part of advice given from participants. Claire advised:

Take the time to do the risk assessment and identify critical positions. Broaden you

definition of a critical position and remember it’s not always high level leadership…for

155

example network administrators and building or facility managers. It’s the positions that

are essential for keeping things moving and for business continuity.

Susan echoed a similar message stating:

There is a lot of value in taking time to do the risk assessment together as a team –

deciding on linchpin positions and working through each position. Spend time in

conversations and learning other areas. You can pick up good practices, learn from each

other. There is lots of value in leadership peer to peer conversations and discussion.

Melissa and Claire also referenced performance assessment resources as part of the

toolkit they found important and useful. Claire advised on the importance of automating a

performance assessment and performance management system. Melissa focused on the process

as well noting that, “It’s important to develop a culture of evaluation. Regular, ongoing

evaluation and you must have accurate and up-to-date position descriptions and performance

review systems.”

In regard to system level resources, Mark, Melissa, Ana, and Richard all spoke about the

online bi-weekly succession planning WebEx meetings that pilots could participate in. Melissa

recommended to “take advantage of the bi-weekly succession planning conference calls. Learn

from others, get new perspectives and ideas. We have a wealth of untapped knowledge.” Mark

noted the same as he recommended the bi-weekly WebEx’s. “I get ideas and motivation from

the WebEx’s. I hear what other campuses are doing and the tools they are using and building.”

Ana said the same recommending that colleges participate in the pilot program and system level

trainings and “take advantage of the bi-weekly touch base meetings.”

A final recommendation related to resources focused on human resources at the system

and college. At the system level, Susan, Ana, and Richard appreciated system involvement but

156

sought more training and support. This included improving allocating resources to improve and

update the toolkit (Ana), more proactive communication and training (Susan), and personnel

time from system employees on campuses (Richard). Henry heavily emphasized the importance

of high level commitment at the system but focused on the college, stating, “The president and

senior leadership team must be fully committed to succession planning. They need to allocate

time and resources and have buy-in.” Ana recommended that “two different people from two

different areas of the college are needed to lead efforts. You need at least two and a dedicated

champion.” Melissa cautioned the importance of “setting realistic expectations for workload and

time commitment of those involved.” Claire summarized this expectation clearly and counseled

the following:

Be mindful of capacity. Higher education is notorious for short changing administration

and human resources. Given our capacity as human resource offices we aren’t going to

be able to do absolutely everything in the way that we would have like to because we just

don’t have the power or people to do that. Be mindful of that and find creative ways to

move important things like succession planning forward given the capacity you have.

Communication. Communication was the focus of the next category of recommendations

provided by the participants of this study. Note that no parameters or specific definitions around

communication were given by participants so recommendations vary in delivery and type of

communication as well as where or whom communication came/comes from or is shared with.

Melissa and Henry also made specific reference to communication with the unions. Both

advised to be aware of internal politics and union communications citing that “communication

needs to be managed carefully,” (Henry) and that “conversations, discussion, and involvement

are important and needs to include the unions up front,” (Melissa).

157

Susan, Robert, and Henry shared specific pieces of advice related to communication as

noted in their own words in the following paragraph. Henry summarized his recommendation

regarding communication as follows:

Spend time up front to convince internal stakeholders why investing time and energy into

succession planning is important. Communicate the value of succession planning with

examples and outline the opportunity costs of not doing succession planning too – like

lost talent, failed searches, and operational gaps.

The concepts of internal communications, specifically with the executive leadership team was

also voiced by Susan who noted:

We need to use succession planning to create an environment of open dialogue in

leadership…to talk openly about transitions like retirement and org structure changes.

The turnover of our long standing VPSA/AA (vice president of academic and student

affairs) was an example of a great venue to be able to open up the conversation and say,

ok, what is giving us heartburn when it comes to this. I mean because there was a fear

factor there…not that somebody else can’t come in and do those thing but when you have

someone who has spent 30 years here there’s a lot of things that aren’t documented. I

just think there is so much value in it (succession planning) but you have to set the time

aside to do it.

Communication also had to do with letting employees know about their opportunities within the

institution. Robert advised:

Send a positive message that person can progress within the company. I used to be a

college lab assistant when I was in school here. I was a student tutor and then I moved on

to be the college’s first network administrator. Then I moved into the classroom, and

158

then I moved in a director role and ultimately where I am today. For staff that want to

move up and maybe even those that don’t, if they know it’s available I think it send a

positive message.

Planning. Lastly, a category around planning – both operational and strategic – emerged

in responses from Melissa, Susan, Ana, Richard, Robert, Claire, and Henry. From stating that

we need to plan now (Richard), to planning next steps (Robert), to creating a system of

integrated college wide planning that includes succession planning (Henry), to understanding the

alignment of system and college priorities (Melissa), each found planning to be a critical element

in moving succession planning forward. A solid plan or system for planning was also important

to Ana because this would help, “define succession planning in terms of what it is (strategic and

equitable), and what it is not (grooming or picking).” Put simply by Robert, “we need to practice

what we preach. We put it on paper and make a plan. There’s nothing wrong with working on

the plan after you plan the work. We just need to plan next steps and figure out how to

operationalize it.”

Creating time and space for planning was important to Melissa who saw time to plan as a

critical element noting, “A plan is needed to set realistic expectations for workload and time

commitments of leadership.” Susan agreed that, “It’s important to set aside dedicated time for

planning – not part of another meeting but instead set regular meetings and prioritize succession

planning.” Later in the interview Susan also offered this piece of advice, “This process is a

journey and you need to plug away at it. It’s not like one meeting and you are going to get

everything done. You just have to keep inching your way along.”

Planning also had many benefits articulated by participants. This included a way to

“capture and manage knowledge transfer during turnover” (Robert), a way to “think ahead and

159

build pieces of succession planning that keep people reflecting and talking about it (Claire),” a

way to “be ready and prepared to start succession planning” (Melissa), a way to “mitigate risk

from turnover” (Participant H), and a way to” complete key things and track them” (Henry).

Research question four focused on the participants and their perception of how their own

or their college’s experiences supported the sustainability of the college in succession planning

over time. Supported by elements of several interview questions, the results of this research

were coded around what experiences or factors influenced sustainability. These included

resource investments that had been made (or not made), how the participants felt about their own

and the college’s ability to continue in succession planning, and what short and long term plans

existed. To capture these experiences in another way and to understand what additional factors

may impact sustainability the researcher also asked each participant for advice or

recommendations they had for other institutions who were thinking about or just engaging in

succession planning initiatives. These recommendations for other institutions helped to frame

what experiences influenced the participants’ and institutions ability to progress in succession

planning and what efforts were or would have been valuable in initial or continued persistence in


Summary

This chapter is constructed by framing the research results around each research question

and includes interpretations, direct responses from the participants, comparison to data from the

literature review, and a summary analysis. It reviews the qualitative research analysis from a

research study that attempts to answer four research questions related to the succession planning

experiences of pilot colleges in a two-year union environment. It reflects the participants’

responses to a series of interview questions that, through supervised qualitative research

160

procedures, were organized to respond to the presented research questions. Interview data,

including direct quotes, was used throughout the chapter to emphasize participant’s experiences

in their succession planning.

Results for research question one, which focused on how individuals interviewed and

their institutions utilized succession planning to prepare for or resolve issues presented by the

leadership crisis in higher education, varied greatly among participants. Interviews were first

able to draw out how individuals and their institutions got involved in utilizing succession

planning and the system pilot program and then established participant’s knowledge of and

engagement in succession planning. Variations among respondents were based on organizational

structure, philosophy of leadership at the institution, and leadership’s ability to understand,

support, and engage in succession planning. However, few responses included reference to the

adapted succession planning framework utilized by the system in the pilot program.

Participants articulated why succession planning was important to them (individually),

their institutions, and to higher education and began to describe how they and their institutions

were utilizing succession planning to mitigate the consequences of the leadership crisis. Since

the literature review outlines many causes for the leadership crisis, yet only peripherally

examines the actual impact of the crisis on two-year colleges, it was important for this research

to explore if these same causes impacted the participants of this study. The answer was yes.

Turnover was addressed by all participants as were other causes such as leadership knowledge,

understanding, and support; external influences; and organizational culture. Reasons for

turnover were clearly outlined in the literature review (demographic, competitive forces, job

requirements, lack of preparation, competencies, changing political climate, institutional

bureaucracy), but responses did not focus solely on these reasons. Rather responses focused on

161

the positions vacated, impact, and the desire or need to find ways to mitigate the impact of the

turnover. These impacts have led participants to design efforts to prepare for this turnover,

which is the focus of the next research question.

Research question two sought to discover specific efforts of the pilot colleges (supported

by the system) as they engaged in succession planning. This question sought to build an

understanding of how the system pilot program has/had influenced the institutions ability to

respond to the challenges presented by the leadership crisis and why institutions decided to

engage (or not) in the pilot program. To build understanding about the efforts for the reader, the

interview questions were focused first on benefits and opportunities the participants and their

institutions experienced and to establish the value of succession planning at the institution. The

researcher differentiated benefits from challenges to provide the reader with a more historical

and current perspective (benefits), and a future perspective (opportunities). Benefits articulated

by the participants focused on developed processes, flexibility, preparedness, and change

management as a result of succession planning strategy implementation. Opportunities

presented, as they existed for individuals and the institution focused on building capacity through

development. This concept and its specific strategies are more formally described by Kotter

(2007) in the literature review (p. 77-78). Using development opportunities to prepare future

leaders in higher education was also an opportunity outlined to fill the leadership pipeline with

talented, capable leaders (Runestad, 2014; Robken, 2007). Noting the importance of institutional

culture, leadership commitment, continuous improvement, and active engagement in the

planning and implementation of succession planning, the participants offered similar

opportunities to those expressed in the McMaster (2012) and Neefe (2009) studies summarized

in the literature review.

162

In discovering benefits and opportunities, the challenges and roadblocks experienced by

the participants and their institutions were also explored as part of research question two.

Challenges became the largest section of data to review during the research and analysis process

and, as a result, several categories emerged within the theme which included entrenchment,

resource allocation, leadership transition and turnover, employee workload and capacity,

planning and prioritization, data measures and return on investment, and union contracts. These

challenge were highlighted in the introduction of this dissertation (p. 11-15) and the literature

review, particularly the section on higher education succession planning (p. 38-53). The

perspectives provided by the participants provide additional insight into the impact of these

challenges.

Finally, throughout this section, there are specific strategies and activities that were

gleaned from participant responses that add value to succession planning from an institutional

and system level perspective. The description of these practices demonstrates how efforts were

supported, implemented, and adopted and can indicate whether such efforts were successful and

sustainable.

Research question three focused specifically on the modified Rothwell framework and

asked how the system adopted framework had been utilized and/or implemented within each

college environment. The succession planning framework refers to the adapted framework

highlighted on page 65 of the literature review. This framework, adopted by the MnSCU system,

is an adapted version from William Rothwell’s (2005) book, Effective Succession Planning:

Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent From Within. This analysis sought to

understand if the model was actually utilized, how it was applied in real-life, and whether or not

it added value to the adoption and implementation of succession planning within the institutions.

163

Responses were organized to focus on each step of the framework to qualitatively test its use and

applicability within the institutions. Responses varied widely between participants in regard to

use of the framework and its resources. Vastly different responses ranged from one institution

not using the framework at all, to some use, to including its full adoption as an institutional

short-term goal. Overall, participants and their institutions seemed to struggle with building

understanding around the framework with leadership teams and deploying the steps of the

framework. The responses did provide examples of how the framework was applied in the initial

steps (1-3), however, the remaining steps (4-7) and the corresponding activities and resources

within those steps were unfamiliar to participants. Not addressing or skipping these critical steps

of the framework led to a lack of systematic processes and evaluation at the college’s with

consequences. The consequences were framed to be the challenges participants articulated here

and were almost identical to those in the literature review. Challenges included a gap of

understanding; an entrenched traditional view of succession planning; a lack of planning; an

unwillingness to let go of historic practices or revisit processes, beliefs and assumptions; anxiety;

and/or a lack of awareness of the coming leadership crisis (Klein and Salk, 2013).

Research question four sought to understand what experiences influence a campus’s

ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot program and continue in succession planning efforts over an

extended period of time. Collectively, the analysis of interview questions presented in this

section are designed to present the perspective of participants about the influences of internal and

external factors that influence a college’s ability to utilize succession planning in the short and

long term. This focus on the participants and their perception of how their own or their college’s

experiences supported the sustainability of succession planning over time are summarized in

three sections that include the resource investments that had been made (or not made), how the

164

participants felt about their own and the college’s ability to continue in succession planning, and

what short and long term plans existed to support succession planning. These factors of impact

somewhat parallel those presented in the literature review which included communication,

commitment, continuous improvement, and culture (p. 65-70). As supported and enhanced by

the articulated experiences of participants who described the influence of these factors on the

sustainability of succession planning, these experiences add further qualitative evidence that the

factors presented in the literature review and in this section of chapter four impact the progress

and sustainability of succession planning.

To present these experiences in a way that frames how these factors might impact

succession planning sustainability, the researcher also presented the advice or recommendations

participants provided for other institutions who were engaged in succession planning initiatives.

These recommendations for other institutions helped to frame what the participants experienced

and how these experiences influenced the individual and institutions ability to progress in

succession planning. It also frames what efforts were or would have been valuable in initial or

continued persistence in succession planning.

165

Chapter V: Discussion and Conclusions

Using succession planning, both as a concept and as part of an applied framework, to

prepare institutions for a leadership crisis, is still new to higher education (Davies & Davies,

2010; Gaffney, 2005; Keim & Murray, 2010; Luna, 2010; Middlehurst, 2008; Neefe, 2009). As

leadership and linchpin positions turn over at an increasingly rapid rate, the concern over how to

find and replace these individuals with qualified potential candidates escalates (Ebbers et al.,

2010; Gaffney, 2005; Luna, 2010; Neefe, 2009, Rothwell, 2010). As a result of this lack of

qualified potential candidates to fill vacated leadership positions, higher education has shown an

increased interest in the principles of succession planning (Ebbers et al., 2010; Gaffney, 2005;

Luna, 2010; McMaster, 2012; Neefe, 2009, Rothwell, 2010). This interest and the emergence

and application of succession planning principles provides the basis and purpose for this

research.

Results Summary

Chapter five will summarize the chapters of this dissertation and outline the findings for

each research question as presented in chapter four. Best practices that emerged from data and

analysis will also be highlighted. These practices will frame recommendations for colleges

considering moving forward with succession planning and for future research on this topic. The

following section summarizes the perspectives of participants in this study with related

information from the literature review broadly around each research question focusing on

succession planning utilization, engagement in succession planning, framework adoption and

use, and sustainability.

Succession planning utilization. The focus of research question one was to explore

how individuals and their institutions utilized succession planning to prepare for or resolve issues

166

presented by the leadership crisis in higher education. Responses varied greatly among

participants. These articulated variations were based on organizational structure, philosophy of

leadership at the institution and leadership’s ability to understand, support, and engage in

succession planning. Participants articulated why succession planning was important to them

(individually), their institutions, and to higher education. They described how their institutions

were utilizing succession planning to mitigate the consequences of the leadership crisis but

overall did not reference the adapted succession planning framework.

Since the literature review outlines many causes for the leadership crisis, yet only

peripherally examines the actual impact of the crisis on two-year colleges, it was important for

this research to explore if these same causes impacted the participants of this study. The answer

was yes. Causes such as leadership knowledge, understanding, and support (or lack thereof);

external influences (competitive forces, economic conditions, politics); and organizational

culture and mission were voiced by participants. However one cause, turnover, was addressed

by all participants. Reasons for turnover were clearly outlined in the literature review and did

align with participant responses, yet their concentration was not just on the why of turnover.

Rather, participants of this study focused more on the impact of turnover on their short and long-

term operations as positions were being vacated. Examples throughout the institution –

academics, IT, student affairs, business operations, facilities – were shared emphasizing their

desire or need to find ways to mitigate the impact of the turnover. These impacts led participants

to design efforts to prepare for this turnover, which is the focus of the next research question.

College engagement in succession planning. By examining the engagement of pilot

colleges in succession planning efforts (supported by the system), the second research question

sought to discover additional detail about the more specific efforts being explored or

167

implemented. This question sought to build an understanding of how the system pilot program

has/had influenced the institutions ability to respond to the challenges presented by the

leadership crisis and why institutions decided to engage (or not) in the pilot program. Benefits

articulated by the participants focused on developed processes, flexibility, preparedness, and

change management as a result of succession planning strategy implementation. Opportunities

presented, as they existed for individuals and the institution, focused on building capacity

through development. This concept and its specific strategies are more formally described by

Kotter (2007) in the literature review and focus on experiences, accomplishments, rewarded

efforts, and ultimately building the leaders that exemplify the mission of the institution (p. 77-

78). Using development opportunities to prepare future leaders in higher education was also an

opportunity outlined to fill the leadership pipeline with talented, capable leaders thus building the

intellectual capital of an institution through investment (Runestad, 2014; Robken, 2007). Noting

the importance of institutional culture, leadership commitment, continuous improvement, and

active engagement in the planning and implementation of succession planning, the participants

offered similar opportunities to those expressed in the McMaster (2012) and Neefe (2009)

studies summarized in the literature review. Examples that support these opportunities such as

strategic planning, organizational structure, access to traditional and non-traditional career paths,

equity in exposure and opportunity to development activities, and hiring processes were all

shared by participants.

The challenges and roadblocks experienced by the participants and their institutions were

also explored as part of research question two. Challenges included entrenchment, resource

allocation, leadership transition and turnover, employee workload and capacity, planning and

prioritization, data measures and return on investment, and union contracts. There is much

168

similarity to the challenges from the introduction of this dissertation (p. 11-15) and literature

review, particularly the section on higher education succession planning (p. 38-53). The

perspectives provided by the participants provide additional insight into the impact of these

challenges.

Throughout this section specific strategies and activities were gleaned from participant

responses that add value to succession planning from an institutional and system level

perspective. They involve addressing each challenge, working as a system to create and share

practices, investing in human capital, and increasing individual and institutional accountability.

The description of these practices demonstrates how, when supported, implemented, and

adopted, efforts can be successful and sustainable.

Framework adoption and utilization. This research also sought to understand if and

how the system modified and adopted framework (modified from Rothwell, 2005, and pictured

on page 65) had been utilized and/or implemented within each college environment. Responses

were organized to focus on each step of the framework to qualitatively test its use and

applicability within the institutions. Responses varied widely between participants in regard to

use of the framework and its resources with one institution not using it at all to another including

its full use as an institutional short-term goal. Overall, participants and their institutions

struggled with building understanding around the framework with leadership teams and in

deploying the steps of the framework, particularly in the latter steps (4-7). Not addressing or

skipping these critical steps of the framework led to a lack of systematic processes and

evaluation with consequences noted as challenges here and in the literature review. These

challenges included: a gap of understanding; an entrenched traditional view of succession

planning; a lack of planning; an unwillingness to let go of historic practices or revisit processes,

169

beliefs and assumptions; anxiety; and/or a lack of awareness of the coming leadership crisis

(Klein and Salk, 2013).

Succession planning sustainability. By examining the experiences of participants and

their respective institutions, a final research question sought to understand what impacted a

college’s ability to sustain (or not) in the pilot program and continue in succession planning

efforts over an extended period of time. The perspective of participants about the influences of

internal and external factors that impact a college’s ability to utilize succession planning in the

short and long-term were presented. How experiences supported the sustainability of the college

in using succession planning over time are summarized in three sections; the resource

investments that had been made (or not made), how participants felt about their own and the

college’s ability to continue in succession planning, and what short and long-term plans existed

to support succession planning. These factors of impact somewhat parallel those presented in the

literature review which included communication, commitment, continuous improvement, and

culture (p. 74). Thus, these experiences add further qualitative evidence that the factors

presented in the literature review and in this section of chapter four impact the progress and

sustainability of succession planning.

Highlighted in this research question are the advice or recommendations participants

provided for other institutions who were engaged in succession planning initiatives. These

recommendations for other institutions helped to frame what the participants experienced, how

these experiences influenced the ability to progress in succession planning, and what efforts were

or would have been valuable in initial or continued persistence in succession planning.

170

Summary of Findings

This study was conducted to identify the challenges that prevent campuses from

succession planning, tie internal and external pipeline issues and their resolution to succession

planning practices, and provide recommendations on how to capitalize on the opportunities

presented through succession planning initiatives. More specifically, this research sought to

capture the experiences of five colleges during a system led pilot of succession planning in a

two-year union environment.

As part of the research, challenges were clearly identified by the participants and

included entrenchment, resource allocation, leadership transition and turnover, employee

workload and capacity, planning and prioritization, data measures and return on investment, and

union contracts. There is much similarity between these identified challenges and those

articulated in the research on this topic. As participants provided additional insight into the

impact of these challenges, they also spoke about the benefits and opportunities succession

planning knowledge, participation, and implementation had on their institutions. These benefits

such as developed processes, increased flexibility, preparedness, and planning for change all

supported institutions ability to capitalize on opportunities presented by succession planning.

The opportunities presented themselves as capacity building, cultural shifts in mindset about

employees (development, retention, and promotion), talent building for institutions and the

system through shared best practices, training and support systems, and additional research to

use data to support the value of succession planning. The experiences of the participants are

reflected throughout chapter four in summary and in their own words to add to the richness of

the discussion around the value of succession planning.

171

By giving voice to these experiences as five colleges participated in a system led pilot of

succession planning in a two-year union environment we can glean specific strategies and

activities from participant responses that add value to succession planning from the institutional

and system level perspective. The description of these practices demonstrates how efforts were

supported, implemented, and adopted and can indicate whether such efforts were successful and

sustainable. The more these strategies, practices, and activities are utilized the more actual and

perceived value is assigned to succession planning. Although, as indicated in chapter four, it is

difficult to measure value, participants did express examples of results that were valuable and

ongoing. These included use of analysis tools to mitigate risk during turnover in linchpin

positions (Robert), creation of a work culture with open dialogue about transitions (Susan),

increased attention to the development of employees to assist them in work progression and

promotion (Robert), a stronger bench of talent at colleges and in the system (Melissa).

By continuing to explore the relationship between the use of succession planning at these

colleges and measurable results, the value associated with succession planning and its use can be

more clearly articulated. Clarity around the impact succession planning can have on a college’s

ability to mitigate the risks and challenges associated with turnover and other leadership crisis

conditions will further support its adoption.

Recommendations

The recommendations from this study will be presented in this section.

Recommendations incorporate information from the literature review, research process,

participants, and the researchers own experience in succession planning. The literature review

outlined high impact practices to positively impact organization culture and structure which

included: staffing strategies that address current and future needs to help prepare institutions for

172

turnover and minimize downtime during transition (Gaffney, 2005); identifying potential

successors and nurturing internal leaders through a process that helps on-board employees and

promotes a successful transition experience in new positions (Succession planning gaining,

2008); encouraging growth and development of employees based on their performance and

potential (Steele, 2006); and balancing succession planning with a commitment to diversity

(Succession planning gaining, 2008; Neefe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). Many of the findings within

this research provide insight into the understanding and use of these high impact practices and

how succession planning might help implement these high impact practices. One can also

consider how the implementation of these practices, with insight from this research, might allow

colleges to take advantage of opportunities and mitigate the challenges of the leadership crisis.

The recommendations below are outlined around one broad message – to begin to engage

in succession planning. In doing so, institutions begin to prepare for turnover and all its effects.

The how to begin, how to implement, and how to sustain efforts is the more detailed focus of the

recommendations provided.

Engage in succession planning to prepare for turnover and minimize operational

gaps. Concern about turnover in high level leadership positions, including c-suite positions and

the presidency, and turnover at the mid-management level was voiced by all participants. The

cause of the turnover – retirement, organizational restructure, interim titles, and natural attrition –

was of less concern than the actual issues it created related to continuity of operations, loss of

organizational history and process knowledge, gaps in service, and difficulty filling positions.

Colleges, including those included in this study, are feeling the pain involved with challenges in

the leadership pipeline of higher education (literature review p. 57-62). With such strong

173

concern, it seems as if institutions would be eager to learn about and implement practices that

would mitigate these risks so what is stopping them?

The case for succession planning in higher education is made throughout this dissertation,

but still institutions seemingly rely on hope, chance, and short term gains rather than on long

term strategic planning to develop talent (Collins, 2001; Rothwell, 2010). The challenges,

particularly time, the entrenched culture in higher education, lack of human and financial

resources, and the inability to prioritize succession planning above other pressing needs and

initiatives keep institutions from committing to the very efforts that would help them overcome

these challenges in the long-term. The tools to facilitate the implementation of succession

planning are available, institutions are willing to share practices and processes, and, in the case

of this research, there is system office support available to colleges that want to move forward.

And it is possible to move forward. The literature review established that it is possible to

align succession planning strategies and best practices with the culture and traditions of public

higher education and that there is a growing number of examples in higher education of

succession planning initiatives (Neefe, 2009; Richards, 2009). The recommendation is to engage

in succession planning – to realize the succession planning will create and maintain a system that

focuses on preparedness, development, and potential which drives purpose, structure, and clarity

(Rothwell, 2010). The question then is not why to engage in succession planning but rather how

to engage in succession planning. This researcher’s recommendations to engage includes:

succession planning as part of strategic planning, adoption of a succession planning model or

framework to guide efforts, succession planning as part of the culture of leadership, creating

established succession planning measures for continuous improvement, and experiencing the

benefits of succession planning to sustain efforts.

174

Succession planning as part of strategic planning. As evidenced in Neefe’s (2009)

study, there is strong positive correlation between succession planning and successful leadership

development efforts when included in strategic planning. As noted in the research of this study,

succession planning (as named) was not included in the strategic plans of the institutions within

this research, however, elements of succession planning, such as evaluation and professional

development, were. Inclusion in the strategic plan demonstrates a more strategic approach and

comprehensive effort by the institution to identify and develop employees with potential which

increases the availability of experienced, capable, motivated employees (Berchelman, 2005).

Such an effort is deliberate and systematic and works to ensure continuity in key positions and

develop intellectual capital for the institution, and in the case of this research, for the entire

system (Rothwell, 2010). In Neefe’s (2009) study, the data showed a strong positive correlation

between colleges with a mature strategic planning process and those with a more mature

succession planning process. This was supported in chapter four of this study as Henry spoke

about the importance of using succession planning as part of the strategic plan. By including

succession planning or its related activities into strategic college and departmental plans, this

increases the priority of these activities and their likelihood of being accomplished. It also

increases the likelihood of investment of resources (financial and human), something noted

throughout this research as one of the largest challenges to succession planning adoption.

During high system-level and college presidential turnover, strategic planning also helps

sustain the importance of efforts when clearly articulated and expected by the Board of Trustees.

An additional recommendation would be to re-address this issue with the Board (as its

membership has also changed) and current system-level leadership. Reaffirming high-level

175

commitment to the importance of succession planning is critical to rebuilding efforts and

mitigating the high impact of turnover.

Adopt a framework. To support succession planning as part of strategic planning,

institutions should consider adoption of the modified framework (MnSCU, 2015) as one way to

formalize succession planning. Preparing current and future leaders through development is a

key component of succession planning in business models (Rothwell, 2010; SHRM, 2009) and in

the modified framework adopted by the MnSCU system, thus I recommend the review and

adoption of this framework (in whole or adapted form) to establish an expectation for each

institution. The framework has clear outcomes, is a cycle of continuous improvement, and

supports succession planning efforts and implementation with tools and resources.

Consider that all steps of the framework incorporate planning, implementation, and

improvement. Step 1 of the modified Rothwell framework adopted by MnSCU (2015)

specifically pushes institutions to articulate their purpose and write a charter to outline their plan,

a perfect segway to inclusion in a strategic plan. Steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 focus on incorporating

efforts and activities around leadership development into a larger succession planning strategy.

This larger strategy can be incorporated at the system and institutional level. Step two focuses

on defining the knowledge, skill, ability, and personal competencies associated with each

linchpin position as identified by the institution to provide clarity around the expectations of

roles and responsibilities within each position in order to assess high potential and high

performing individuals to accelerate development (MnSCU, 2015). This step aligns well with

Higher Learning Commission guidelines on valuing employees (AQIP category 3) and in

preparing for continuity in operations.

176

Step three involves using documentation and data sources to assess employee

performance and potential to prepare employees through a process of comprehensive evaluation

(MnSCU, 2015). This again aligns with AQIP category 3 on valuing employees and helps

institutions meet its state statute obligation to conduct annual evaluations on all its employees.

Several union contracts also have required evaluation for pay increases or require annual

professional development plans.

Step four focuses on identifying and communicating with the employees about

development opportunities and confirming their interest and ability along with building a

communication plan discussing effort of succession planning with stakeholders (MnSCU, 2015).

According to Steele (2006) formalized succession plans include specific objectives, definitions,

procedures, policies, and implementation strategies that also help organization clearly

communicate succession planning activities in an accessible way to its stakeholders. Ongoing

communication also supports efforts that are transparent and known which help ensure fairness

and an environment free of bias (Kotter, 2007; Rothwell, 2010). I believe this is a key step in

building the structure needed to support a diverse, strong talent pool. Going back to the finding

from Neefe’s (2009) study, these steps or communications may assist colleges in creating

equitable opportunities for development. Time spent in this step could reduce the impact of

Neefe’s (2009) findings in regard to differences in career development opportunities based on

gender, geographic region, career stage, and non-traditional career paths on talent development

and retention.

Finally, step five uses the assessment from previous steps to build an accelerated

individual development plan for the employee to address gaps in knowledge, skills, or

experience to better prepare them for opportunities (MnSCU, 2015). This step supports

177

designing and implementing intentionality and equitability into the process of development.

Recall the strategies and techniques identified by Luzbetak (2010) like mentoring, collaboration,

and internal career paths that align with this step. Each supports this step of the framework and

also could support reducing the disparity Luzbetak (2010) found in use, application and impact

of these techniques across gender, or from a broader view to other diverse leaders.

Steps 6 and 7 address the sustainability of succession planning within the institution.

Establishing the resources needed to support efforts, utilizing the systems or processes

established, and actually experiencing the results of succession planning over time help

institutionalize succession planning. The final steps support both process improvement and

capacity building which celebrating the successes (MnSCU, 2015). The utilization of this

framework supports the planning and continuous improvement elements noted in the previous

recommendation on strategic planning and reflects the type of system or process that

demonstrates commitment to a culture of leadership that can meet evolving current and future

institutional needs as articulated in the next recommendation (Neefe 2009; Rothwell, 2010).

Succession planning as part of the culture of leadership. Succession planning is a

commitment to the human resources of an institution and creating a culture of leadership requires

consistent demonstration of this commitment to develop people (Kotter, 2007). Succession

planning relies heavily on current leaders to establish a culture of growth and development with

emphasis on developing the next generation of leaders (Austin, 2015). Thus, current leaders can

take responsibility for creating a culture where people value strong leadership and strive to create

it (Kotter, 2007). These same current leaders are the ones who must develop and formalize ways

to build talent to meet current and future workforce demands in higher education (Davies &

Davies, 2010; Feeney, 2003). Here lies the problem.

178

Current leaders are not developing or formalizing ways to build talent and not taking

responsibility for creating a culture where people value strong leadership and strive to create it.

Results from this study indicate the philosophy of executive leadership teams and the ability of

the institution to tie succession planning to strategy impact whether and how much the institution

engaged in succession planning. Participants of this study acknowledged the importance of

preparing the current leadership team to learn about succession planning, engage in discussion

around succession planning, and to facilitate support within the campus community to build a

spirit collaboration and teamwork. Although noted as important, it was not prioritized by current

leadership teams.

Creating a culture of development requires a change in priority. Consider how effort in

communication, commitment, and continuous improvement within a succession plan establish

and support a culture within an organization that increases intellectual capital. I believe value

placed on the human talent in an institution is a direct reflection of culture. People reflect the

competencies, values, and mission of the institution, thus how these are developed and supported

create a culture that reflects this. It is the leadership’s responsibility to do this – to create a

culture of leadership by consistently demonstrating the commitment to develop people into

leaders (Kotter, 2007). Although prioritization of succession planning is the responsibility of

current leadership, the impact of succession planning is felt throughout the organization, thus

open, ongoing, and transparent communication, particularly in a union environment, is critical to

success.

Establishing succession planning measures as part of continuous improvement.

Measuring succession planning is not a simple ROI calculation. In fact, like many things in

higher education, measures to determine success, resource allocation, and accountability are

179

difficult to determine (Runestead, 2014). Preparing future leaders for our institutions requires

significant effort and resources. The results are better prepared, more productive, accomplished

leaders who are ready to meet the challenges of the institutions in which they work or will work.

Higher education can use succession planning to fill its pipeline with talented, capable leaders

who will serve students for years to come, but only if the institutions are willing to commit the

information, human, and financial resources needed. As noted in chapter four, participants of

this study agreed that both financial and human (time) resources were in limited supply and

voiced frustration about how to move efforts in succession planning forward. In a situation of

limited resources and competing priorities, committing these resources should require evidence

to support the value of succession planning.

One step to providing this evidence is to create clear measures related to succession

planning to establish its qualitative and quantitative value. As presented in chapter four, data

such as separation analysis (including reason and associated cost of turnover) and retention

strategies (promotions, position changes, stretch assignments, mentoring activities, etc.) can be

calculated. Other measures such as evaluative data on individuals in linchpin positions,

objective performance measures, ROI of leadership development activities, employee

satisfaction surveys, and forecasting for future position needs can also be assessed. The question

of how to measure these in an effective way is more elusive. Runestad (2014) voiced this same

concern noting that as institutions proceed with efforts they spend little time evaluating the ROI

or assessing the effectiveness of efforts.

To create a system to assess the effectiveness of succession planning, institutions or

systems can set clear goals with objectives and measures to support. The measures themselves

can be both qualitative and quantitative to provide a comprehensive picture of progress. I would

180

propose that the same principles used to develop effective assessment of curriculum in teaching

and learning, can be applied to a succession planning initiative. In his 2007 white paper, Nicol

outlined ten effective assessment practices, several of which can be applied. For example, Nicol

(2007) contends that assessment helps clarify what good performance is with goals, criteria, and

standards. In succession planning, this could be applied as part of step two in the modified

succession planning framework to define what competencies are needed in a particular position,

how these competencies are measured, and what development opportunities can be provided to

achieve these desired competencies. Recall that Claire had begun a project to create position

roadmaps for each linchpin position with defined behavioral and technical competencies to give

employees a visual outline (map) of what was needed in a particular position. The position

roadmaps were then used to identify ways to pursue a particular position through development

strategies specific to the competencies of that position. These same roadmaps could also be used

to evaluate performance in positions, thus closing the loop of assessment. To help colleges begin

this process of assessment, the succession planning toolkit has example outcomes, tools, and

resources. The largest hurdle to the implementation of assessment is simply time.

In the case of this study, the system office and talent management team can also provide

additional guidance and support regarding assessment. Currently the success of the development

programs conducted by the system are measured in terms of employee progress (promotion,

transfer, and placement within and outside system). Could similar measures for employees not

taking part in these programs also be measured within the entire system? Could data on

employee retention and turnover be made available to colleges? Can employee satisfaction data

from the system be translated into a series of recommendations for campuses to review and

implement? With in-field experts and a system research staff, establishing a set of ongoing,

181

transparent, measures, similar to what is done in academic and student affairs divisions, could be

accomplished by human resources to further support succession planning initiatives.

Experience the benefits of succession planning. Consider the long list of benefits and

opportunities presented to institutions from succession planning: developed processes, increased

flexibility, preparedness for turnover, capacity building, talent building for the institution or

system (development, retention, and promotion), support systems for training, and data measures

to evidence success. My final recommendation is to experience these benefits and the short-term

wins that accompany them. Over time, these wins will build credibility for succession planning.

Credibility builds success and increases momentum, thus establishing the value of succession

planning and creating a desire to continue efforts. Continued efforts lead to more wins, more

success, and a sustainable practice that becomes part of the institutions culture.

If we walk through on short example this becomes more evident. Imagine an institution

begins to engage in succession planning by training its leadership team on the principles and

strategies to deploy a risk assessment of key linchpin positions. One leader, the CIO, takes this

strategy to his/her department and examines the risk factors associated with several linchpin

positions. As a result, he/she begins to understand the fragility of some areas and works with

employees to cross train, document processes, and sends employees to additional certification

training. Six months later, a key linchpin position is unpredictably vacated. Because of the

previous efforts, service continuity, data security, and key responsibilities are covered. The CIO

has time to reevaluate current employees, assess departmental needs, and provide new

opportunities for development and advancement. This is a win! The CIO shares this with the

CFO who has not done this and is having operational difficulty because of a recent termination.

The CFO further understand the need for preparation and planning and now begins the process in

182

his/her own department. The practice becomes standard throughout leadership because of the

positive impact it had. Benefits from succession planning are experienced and the next success

only adds credibility and builds momentum. Over time, because of the short-term gains, long-

term plans are implemented and practices become institutionalized. It’s not fast, but arguably

nothing in higher education practice is fast. Instead this is a realistic, manageable, and practical

way to approach institutional change.

Limitations

Limitations within this study are similar to those in rooted in qualitative research

including validity, reliability, generalizability, and researcher bias. Because qualitative research

is so dependent on the participants of the study, limitations also emerged with regard to

participant knowledge about succession planning and the conditions within their respective

institutions during the course of this research.

The question of validity in qualitative research is related to the authenticity of findings

are they trustworthy, for example, and the ability to generalize these findings (Denzin & Lincoln,

2008). Kvale and Brinkman (2009) use an open concept of validity, noting that it refers to the

truth or correctness of the research and depends on whether it investigates what it is supposed to

investigate (p. 246). Kvale and Brinkman (2009) contend that reliability also pertains to the

trustworthiness of the research and is dependent on its consistency with other findings and the

consistency of response by participants during the interview process (p. 245). It also involves

interviewer/researcher reliability during the interview and coding processes. To increase

reliability and validity in the research, the researcher engaged in practices outlined in chapter

three with focus on conceptualization, data collection, analysis and interpretation, depiction of

detail, and the utilization of developed standards throughout the process (Merriam, 2009). The

183

results of these efforts produced findings that were consistent among respondents from the same

institution, from multiple institutions, and with conditions outlined in the literature review.

However, there is no way to verify the results as they were based on the participants own

experiences and perspectives. These results are thus subjective and difficult to replicate.

The sample size of the study provides a limitation to the generalizability of the study, as

do the conditions in which the sample colleges operate as part of a larger state system. Five of

the original six colleges who participated in the system led pilot program responded to this study.

Eight interviews were conducted from participants who work(ed) at these colleges. Even with

this high participation rate, the ability to broadly generalize the findings of this study are low.

The findings could be used to predict the ability of a college to engage in succession planning or

to measure the success of a succession plan. However, the parameters in which these five

colleges operate as part of a statewide system in a union environment may limit the

generalizability of the study to those colleges who operate in similar environments.

Succession planning is not a stand-alone process but rather part of a larger effort to

manage talent. The process for developing talent to meet current and future workforce needs

requires building leadership knowledge, skills, and abilities with intentionality to add stability

(Runestad, 2014). However stability became an issue, even during the course of this study.

During the course of this research and analysis alone (approximately 18 months), three of the

five institutions experienced presidential turnover (the other two experienced within the previous

18 months), three of five experienced CAO/CSAO turnover, and all experienced turnover in at

least one c-suite position. During the course of this research, three participants themselves also

left institutions for other opportunities. This turnover may have limited the ability of the

participants to accurately answer questions or impacted how they responded (led to brevity or

184

underdeveloped responses or increased their willingness to share information regarding their

experiences).

As is the nature of qualitative research, this was a time-consuming process. The

researcher was able to conduct interviews, transcribe and code research, and analyze results

within approximately one year. During this timeframe additional considerations, experiences, or

external factors that might impact the study could have occurred which may add to the body of

research presented in this study.

A final limitation is the researcher. As the primary instrument of data collection and

analysis, I strove to design and implement an unbiased study using strong documentation and

verification techniques. However, the nature of my involvement in succession planning

initiatives at the institutional and system level as described in the delimitations and positioning

section of chapter one may cause readers to question my ability to remain unbiased throughout

the duration of this study.

Future Research

A thorough search of existing research on succession planning in the two year college

environment had limited findings, thus one of the main purposes of this study was to expand on

the research available on succession planning in higher education. This research adds to the

small body of research that exists in regard to the use of succession planning in higher education,

particularly in a two-year or community college environment. Because the existing body of

research was informed primarily by broader topics related to elements of succession planning

such as; performance review and leadership development, succession planning in industry, for

specific positions or with specific populations, there are many additional research questions that

185

can be explored with qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies (Neefe, 2009; Richards,

2012). The following paragraphs highlight areas of possible future research.

Measuring the ROI of succession planning remains challenging but is a factor in its

acceptance and adoption. Additional studies could focus on researching what measures can be

used to make the case for succession planning. Could a quantitative tool be developed and tested

to validate the results of succession planning implementation at a college or within a system?

Could research tie succession planning to tangible factors to establish is value? Can measurable

outcomes be developed and utilized to add an additional level of accountability? How can

measures can be developed and tested that allow value to be assessed?

Expanding understanding of why institutions of higher education, particularly public

higher education, are not engaging in succession planning was part of the purpose of this study.

Further research on the barriers to implementation can be explored to provide increased

understanding of the issues that arise and how they are managed, how specific barriers impact

implementation, and what the impact is when efforts are sustained. Using an example from this

research, one might explore if succession planning initiatives can really be implemented and

become part of a college’s culture of sustainability in a mandatory union state versus a right to

work state. Another example might include testing the usability of the Rothwell framework in a

modified/adapted state, along with its specific steps, at one institution over an extended period of

time to produce a rich case study with increased depth.

A final example might be to consider a longitudinal study. Since the timeline of this

study was less than two years, the actual impact of implementation is difficult to discern.

Colleges began the process with varying levels of knowledge, support, and engagement and took

varied paths during their time the pilot and in utilizing the framework. A longitudinal study of

186

succession planning in higher education (or a specific environment within higher education)

could give more insight into what practices work, how colleges manage through issues as they

are presented, and tie succession planning to benefits outlined in this study.

Each of these suggested areas of research would contribute to the study of succession

planning in the higher education environment. They include a variety of methodological

approaches, which collectively would further the case for adoption of succession planning in

higher education. These suggestions for future research support an environment of employee

development and retention, transparency, and sustainability with measureable outcomes and

accountability.

Summary

The results of this study suggest there is much room for higher education to utilize

succession planning as part of it efforts to prepare for leadership challenges. The results from

the research provide new knowledge to inform the existing body of research, provides

information about the impact of succession planning, and gives guidance on the design and

implementation of succession planning. From a general perspective, higher education can seek

to better understand the impact of succession planning on its colleges and universities and utilize

the framework and strategies presented in this study to enhance its efforts in talent management

in preparation for (or to mitigate the consequences of) the leadership crisis.

For those colleges and universities that exist as part of a system, there can be many

benefits and opportunities to succession planning. A system can offer an organized, integrated,

research based approach for colleges to utilize. In the case of this study, the system offered a

pilot program with support, tools and resources, and extensive training and development

opportunities. Verbal support for succession planning was voiced by the Board of Trustees,

187

Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and Talent Management staff to college Presidents, CHRO’s, and

other key leaders. These efforts have and continue to train and develop a system-wide pipeline

of mid and high level leaders for positions, build a network of knowledge, create new

opportunities for employees across the state, retain high performance employees, and support a

culture of leadership. Yet, the system office itself and the colleges and universities involved in

the pilot have not successfully integrated succession planning into their planning and operations.

From an individual institution perspective the benefits are vast. Imagine a qualified

pipeline of prepared, motivated, employees who are able to hit the ground running in a new

position. Institutional history is preserved, operational gaps are limited, service to students is

uninterrupted, employees are intrinsically and extrinsically motivated by strategic development,

and the investment in the institutions greatest resource, its people, is demonstrated and integrated

into its culture. Turnover no longer has to be a concern but rather it is a prepared for, normal

occurrence in the life cycle of the institution. This takes active support from existing leadership,

allocated resources, and a continued commitment to succession planning and all its related

components that reflect itself in the culture and present itself in the strategic plan of the

organization.

To accomplish these results, however, takes time, and right now this is the one resource

higher education does not possess. Time spent in planning, developing, and managing

succession planning is an investment in the future. However, when pressing items create so

many distractions, long-term planning and investment sometimes takes a back seat. To

overcome this issue of time, leadership must buy-in to the value of its greatest asset – its

employees. Such a level of buy-in can be reflected in many ways: inclusion in strategic,

operational, and tactical planning within the organization; allocation of resources (time,

188

financial, and informational) to support employees; development of policies and processes that

align efforts and create an equitable environment; and establishing measures to gauge progress

and continually improve efforts.

189

References

American Federation of Teachers Higher Education Program and Policy Council, 2002; Report

American Association of Community Colleges. (2005). Competencies for community college

leaders. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/competencies/Documents/compentenciesforleaders.pd

f

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). (2013). AACC competencies for

community college leaders (2nd ed.). Retrieved from

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Co

mpetencies_web.pdf

Austin, W. (2015). State of succession: Now is the time to focus on retaining and developing

new leaders. Community College Journal. Retrieved from http://www.ccjournal-

digital.com/ccjournal/20150108#pg18

Berchelman, K.D. (2005). Succession planning. Journal for Quality & Participation, 28(3), 11-

12.

Betts, K., Urias, D., Chavez, J., & Betts, K. (2009). Higher education and shifting U.S.

demographics: Need for visible administrative career paths, professional development,

succession planning & commitment to diversity. Academic Leadership On-Line Journal,

7(2). ISSN: 1533-7812.

Boerner, H. (2015). Game plan: Colleges share a page from their playbooks that addresses the

looming leadership crisis. Community College Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.ccjournal-digital.com/ccjournal/20150708#p22

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/competencies/Documents/compentenciesforleaders.pdf

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/competencies/Documents/compentenciesforleaders.pdf

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web.pdf

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/Events/leadershipsuite/Documents/AACC_Core_Competencies_web.pdf

http://www.ccjournal-digital.com/ccjournal/20150108#pg18


http://www.ccjournal-digital.com/ccjournal/20150708#p22

190

Boggs, G.R. & Kent, E.L. (2002). Presidents academy: An evolution of leadership development.

New Directions for Community Colleges, (N.12).

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Borden, V.M.H. (2010). The accountability/improvement paradox. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved

from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/04/30/borden

Carey, D.C., Ogden, D., & Roland, J.A. (2000). CEO Succession. New York: NY: Oxford

University Press.

Cejda, B.D., McKenney, C.B., Burley, H. (2001). The Career Lines of Chief Academic Officers

in Public Community Colleges. Community College Review. 28(4). 31-46

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. New

York, NY; Harper Business Publishing.

Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard

Business Review, p. 66-76

Conger, J.A., & Fulmer, R.M. (2003). Developing your leadership pipeline. Harvard Business

Review, 8(12), 76-84.

Cook, B., & Kim, Y. (2012). The American college president 2012. American Council on

Education and Center for Policy Analysis

Davies, B., & Davies, B.J. (2010). Talent management in academies. International Journal of

Education Management, 24(4), 418-426.

Davis, E.B., Jr. (2010). Colleges need to offer clear path to leadership. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i45/45a06401.htm

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i45/45a06401.htm

191

Earley, P., Weindling, D., Bubba, S., & Glenn, M. (2009). Future leaders: The way forward?

School Leadership & Management, 29(3), 295-306. doi:10.1080/13632430902793791

Ebbers, L., Conover, K.S., & Samuel A. (2010). Leading from the middle: Preparing leaders for

new roles. New Directions for Community Colleges, 149, 59-64. doi:10.1002/cc.396

Eddy, P.L., & VanDerLinden, K.E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in higher

education. New visions of leadership or same old “hero” leader? Community College

Review, 34(1), 5-26.

Evelyn, J. (2001). Community college face a crisis of leadership. Chronicle of Higher Education,

47(30), 26-28.

Feeney, S.A. (2003). Irreplaceable you. Workforce Management, 82(8), 36-40.

Fullan, M, & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. Journal of College

& Character, X(6), 1-8.

Fulton-Calkins, P. & Milling, C. (2005). Community-college leadership: An art to be practiced:

2010 and beyond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(3), 233-250.

Gaffney, S. (2005). Career development as a retention and succession planning tool. Journal for

Quality & Participation, 28(3), 7-10.

Getty, C. (1993). Planning successfully for succession planning. Training & Development,

47(11), 31.

Hartley, M., Eckel, P., & King, J. (2009). Looking beyond the numbers: The leadership implications

of shifting student, faculty, and administrator demographics. American Council on Education.

Washington, D.C.

192

Hockaday, J. & Puyear, D.E. (2014). Community college leaders in the new millennium.

American Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/ccleadershipnewmill

enium.aspx

Keim, M.C., & Murray, J.P. (2008). Chief academic officers’ demographics and education

backgrounds. Community College Review, 36(2), 116-132.

Kessler, G.C. (2002). Why the leadership bench never gets any deeper. Human Resources

Planning, 25(1), 32-44.

Kezar, A. (2009). Change in higher education: Not enough or too much? Change, 18-23.

Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/November-

December%202009/full-change-higher-ed.html

Kiley, K. (2012). Searching for an answer. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/04/major-turnover-research-university-

presidencies-could-lead-unconventional-picks

Kleinsorge, R. (2010). Expanding the role of succession planning. T+D, 64(4), 66-69.

Klein, M.F. & Salk, R.J. (2013). Presidential succession planning. A qualitative study in private

higher education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 335-245.

Kotter, J.P (1999). John P. Kotter on what leaders really do. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business

Review.

Kotter, J.P. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,

1-10.

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/ccleadershipnewmillenium.aspx

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Resources/aaccprograms/pastprojects/Pages/ccleadershipnewmillenium.aspx

http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/November-December%202009/full-change-higher-ed.html

http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/November-December%202009/full-change-higher-ed.html

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/04/major-turnover-research-university-presidencies-could-lead-unconventional-picks

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/10/04/major-turnover-research-university-presidencies-could-lead-unconventional-picks

193

Kotter, J.P. (2007). What leaders really do. In R.P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding

the dynamics of power and influence in organizations (pp. 23-32). (2nd edition). Notre

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Lapovsky, L. (2012). Succession planning: Advice for the president, the board, and HR.

Retrieved from http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/succession-planning-advice-

president-board-and-hr

Land, P.C. (2003). From the other side of the academy to academic leadership roles: Crossing

the great divide. New Direction for Higher Education, 124, 13-20.

Luna, G. (2010). Succession planning: A doctoral program partnership for emerging community

college leaders. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 34(12), 977-990.

doi:10.1080/10668921003723144

Luzbetak, A.K. (2010). Community college succession planning: Preparing the next generation

of women for leadership. (Doctoral Dissertation). National-Louis University.

Manger, J. (2009). The leadership pipeline. Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/the-leadership-pipeline/7349#

Mann, T. (2010). Attrition among chief academic officers threatens strategic plans. Chronicle of

Higher Education, 56(39), A80-A80.

McMaster, S.M. (2012). Succession planning for community colleges: A study of best practices.

(Doctoral Dissertation). University of Maryland.

Middlehurst, R. (2008). Not enough science or not enough learning? Exploring the gaps

between leadership theory and practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 322-339.

http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/succession-planning-advice-president-board-and-hr

http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/succession-planning-advice-president-board-and-hr

http://chronicle.com/blogs/onhiring/the-leadership-pipeline/7349

194

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2010). Project six team study: Research to inform

MNSCU succession planning effort. St. Paul, MN. Retrieved from

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/documents/Tea

m_6_Final_Report.pdf

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (2012). Using leadership competencies: Tips and

tools for using leadership competencies in recruitment, selection, performance management,

coaching, and professional and leadership development. MNSCU Talent Management

Steering Committee.

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (2012). Succession planning pilot program

evaluation. Retrieved from:

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/documents/MN_Part_Pilot_Final.pdf

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). About Minnesota State Colleges and

Universities. Retrieved from: http://www.mnscu.edu/system/index.html

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). Executive Leader Development program.

Retrieved from:

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/MnSCU_Exec_Leader_Dev.html

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). Luoma Leadership Academy Program.

Retrieved from:

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/Luoma.html

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). Succession Planning. Retrieved from:

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/talent_management/Succession%20Planning.html

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2015). Talent Management Division. Retrieved

from: http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/talent_management/

https://mail.sctcc.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=9ff6048b19514a9096c9bcf23ecf1124&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hr.mnscu.edu%2ftraining_and_development%2fLeadership_Academy%2fdocuments%2fTeam_6_Final_Report.pdf

https://mail.sctcc.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=9ff6048b19514a9096c9bcf23ecf1124&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.hr.mnscu.edu%2ftraining_and_development%2fLeadership_Academy%2fdocuments%2fTeam_6_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/documents/MN_Part_Pilot_Final.pdf

http://www.mnscu.edu/system/index.html

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/MnSCU_Exec_Leader_Dev.html

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/training_and_development/Leadership_Academy/Luoma.html

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/talent_management/Succession%20Planning.html

http://www.hr.mnscu.edu/talent_management/

195

Moser, K. (2008). California’s community colleges struggle to recruit and retain presidents. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/California-

Community/7524

Mooney, C. J. (1993). Study examines turnover rates in 12 campus jobs. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 39(23), A16.

Neefe, D. O. (2009). Succession planning in two-year technical college systems. (Doctoral

Dissertation). University of Minnesota.

Runestad, E.J. (2014). Grow your own leaders: Campus-based leadership development

programs. (Doctoral Dissertation). St. Cloud State University.

Nicol, D. (2007). Principles of good assessment and feedback: Theory and practice. Keynote

Paper. From the REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner

Responsibility, 29-31 May, 2007. Retrieved from

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/staffhome/learningandteaching/documents/keyfactors/Princip

les_of_good_assessment_and_feedback.pdf

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership theory and practice (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE Publications.

Pierce, D. (2015). Guiding light. How community college presidents can ensure their vision

lives on, even after they move on. Community College Journal. June/July, 2015. 26-32.

Retrieved from http://www.ccjournal-digital.com/ccjournal/20150708#pg28

Rich, D. (2006). Academic leadership and the restructuring of higher education. New Directions

for Higher Education, (134). 37-48

http://chronicle.com/article/California-Community/7524

http://chronicle.com/article/California-Community/7524

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/staffhome/learningandteaching/documents/keyfactors/Principles_of_good_assessment_and_feedback.pdf

https://www.york.ac.uk/media/staffhome/learningandteaching/documents/keyfactors/Principles_of_good_assessment_and_feedback.pdf


196

Richards, C.L. (2009). A new paradigm: Strategies for succession planning in higher education.

(Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University.

Rhodes, C., & Brundrett, M. (2009). Growing the leadership talent pool: Perceptions of heads,

middle leaders and classroom teachers about professional development and leadership

succession planning within their own schools. Professional Development in Education,

35(3), 381-398. doi:10.1080/19415250902987122

Robken, H. (2007). Leadership turnover among university presidents. Management Revue, (18),

2. 138-152.

Romano, R.M., Townsend, B., & Mamiseishvili, K. (2009). Leaders in the making: Profile and

perceptions of students in community college doctoral programs. Community College

Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 309-320.

Rothwell, W.J. (2002). Succession planning for future success. Strategic HR Review, 1(3), 30-

33.

Rothwell, W.J. (2010). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and

building talent from within (4th ed.). New York, NY: American Management Association.

Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college

leadership. American Association of Community Colleges, 1-6.

Sinady, C., Floyd, D.L., & Mulder, A.E. (2010). The AACC competencies and the PhD

completion project: Practical implications. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 34, 218-226. doi:10.1080/10668920903451442

Society for Human Resource Management. (2015). Succession planning. Retrieved from

http://www.shrm.org/education/corporatetraining/pages/successionplanning.aspx

http://www.shrm.org/education/corporatetraining/pages/successionplanning.aspx

197

Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). Engaging in succession planning.

Society for Human resource Management (2015). Succession planning competencies. Retrieved

from http://www.shrm.org/communities/volunteerresources/pages/succplg.aspx

Song, W., & Hartley H.V. (2012). A study of presidents of independent colleges and universities.

The Council of Independent Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cic.edu/Research-and-

Data/Research-Studies/Documents/CIC_PresSurvey2012.pdf

Steele, P. (2006). Succession Planning (White paper revised). Regis Learning Solutions, 2006.

Tekle, R. (2012). Compensation and benefits of community college CEO’s: 2012. American

Association of Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aaccbriefs

The Council for the Study of Community Colleges (CSCC). (2015). Graduate studies in the

community colleges field. Retrieved from http://www.cscconline.org/home/graduate-

programs/

Witt/Keiffer (2008). Succession planning gaining support in higher education. Retrieved from

www.wittkieffer.com

Witt/Keiffer (2014). Best practices in higher education presidential search: Recruitment

strategies for a new breed of leaders. Retrieved from

http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/thought-

leadership/practice/Best%20Practices%20in%20Higher%20Education%20Presidential%20S

earch.pdf

Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic

department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27,

(2). 227-238.

http://www.shrm.org/communities/volunteerresources/pages/succplg.aspx

http://www.cic.edu/Research-and-Data/Research-Studies/Documents/CIC_PresSurvey2012.pdf

http://www.cic.edu/Research-and-Data/Research-Studies/Documents/CIC_PresSurvey2012.pdf

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/aaccbriefs

http://www.cscconline.org/home/graduate-programs/

http://www.cscconline.org/home/graduate-programs/

http://www.wittkieffer.com/

http://www.wittkieffer.com/file/thought-leadership/practice/Best%20Practices%20in%20Higher%20Education%20Presidential%20Search.pdf



198

Appendix A: Leadership Competency Comparison

SHRM’s

succession

planning

competencies

(2015)

Transformational

Leadership

Practices

(Northouse, 2013)

Servant Leader

Behaviors

(Northouse,

2013)

Skills

Approach

Competencies

(Northouse

2013)

AACC

Competencies

(American

Association of

Community

Colleges, 2013)

MnSCU

Competencies

(Minnesota State

Colleges and

Universities, 2013)

Leadership

Initiative

Judgment

Planning and

organizing

Teamwork

Commitment

Political savvy

Idealized

influence

Charisma

Inspirational

motivation

Intellectual

stimulation

Individualized

consideration

Conceptualizing

Emotional

healing

Putting followers

first

Helping

followers grow

and succeed

Ethical behavior

Empowering

Creating value

for the

community

Problem-

solving skills

Social judgment

skills

Knowledge

General and

crystallized

cognitive ability

Motivation,

Personality

Performance

Organizational

strategy

Institutional

finance

Institutional

research

Fundraising

Resource

management

Communication

Collaboration

Community and

college advocacy

Leader of self:

Understands self

and others,

Acts with integrity

Leader as

Relationship

Builder:

Values diversity,

Communicates

effectively,

Builds trust

Leader as Manager:

Customer service,

Builds

organizational

talent,

Demonstrates good

stewardship

Leader as

innovator:

Articulates vision

and mission,

Builds

organizational

capacity to meet

future challenges,

Demonstrates

effective decision-

making

199

Appendix B: Informed Consent

Building the Case for Succession Planning in Higher Education: A Study of Succession

Planning Pilots within the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System

You are invited to participate in a qualitative research study that focuses on succession planning

in colleges in the Minnesota State Colleges and University (MnSCU) system. The research

project is being conducted by Kristina Keller, a doctoral student in the School of Education at St.

Cloud State University.

Background Information and Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative study is to capture the experiences of colleges during a succession

planning pilot in a two-year union environment that is part of the fifth largest higher education

system in the United States. The research aims to understand how colleges engage in succession

planning efforts and to identify the challenges that prevent campuses from succession planning,

tie pipeline issues and their resolution to succession planning practices, and provide

recommendations on how to capitalize on the talent opportunities presented through succession

planning initiatives. By investigating the relationship between the use of succession planning at

two-year colleges and the institutions connection to a larger system, the study will also seek to

understand the college and system’s ability to adopt and sustain succession planning principles.

Procedures

If you decided to participant in this study, you will be asked to allow the researcher to conduct an

interview(s) regarding you/your college’s efforts as part of the succession planning pilot in the

MnSCU system. The purpose of the interview is to gather empirical data related to the research

questions of this study. The initial interview will last for approximately one-hour. However, if

more time is needed, or additional interviews are required, they can be scheduled at your

convenience. Your responses will be recorded, but only so the researcher may transcribe your

responses as accurately as possible for exact representation of the conversation. The participant,

the researcher, and the researcher’s professor will be the only people to have privilege to these

interviews. The only alternative for which the recordings may be heard by anyone other than

those listed is by written permission from you, the participant.

Risks and Benefits

Little or no potential risks are identified. The benefits would include personal growth for each

participant through opportunities for reflection and dialogue about their experience.

Confidentiality

Your responses will be kept strictly confidential, your name will not be disclosed nor will

identified direct quotes be used. During the interview you may refuse to answer any questions.

200

After the completion of the interviews, you will receive your transcribed interviews. At this

point, if you wish to expand responses or note omissions to the transcription, you may.

Research Results

Results of this study will be published at the St. Cloud State University Repository or you are

welcome to contact me (320-380-5538 or [email protected]) to request study results.

Contact Information

I truly appreciate your participation in this research. I want you to be as comfortable as possible.

Please feel free to talk to me about any concern you might have. My phone number is 320-380-

5538 and email is [email protected].

This project has been submitted for guidance and approval by the Institutional Review Board for

the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB) at St. Cloud State University. If you have questions

about your rights as a research participant, please contact the IRB representative, 320-308-4932

or the advisor of this dissertation, Dr. Steven McCullar at 320-308-4727.

Voluntary Participation/Withdrawal

Participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current

or future relations with St. Cloud State University, the researcher, or MnSCU. If you decide to

participate, you are free to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Acceptance to Participate

Your signature indicates that you are at least 18 years of age, you have read the information

provided above, and you have consented to participate. You may withdraw from the study at any

time without penalty after signing this form

Participant’s Name________________________________________Date__________________

Researcher’s Name________________________________________Date__________________

201

Appendix C: Interview Question Guide

- Interview Question 1. Why did your campus select to be a part of the pilot program?

- Interview Question 2: How have you engaged in succession planning on your campus so

far? How have you/your institution applied the steps in the succession planning

framework?

- Interview Question 3. What are the benefits or opportunities you/your institution has

experienced by engaging in succession planning? In what ways does (do you anticipate)

succession planning add value or resolve problems presented by the leadership crisis in

higher education?

- Interview Question 4. What are the challenges or roadblocks have you/your institution

experienced to applying the modified Rothwell model of succession

planning/implementing succession planning on your campus?

- Interview Question 5. What resource investments (human, information, financial) have

been made (or not made) in developing leaders within your campus as a result of

succession planning?

- Interview Question 6. What are you next steps in succession planning? Short and long

term goals?

- Interview Question 7. What advice would you give to other colleges embarking on a

succession planning initiative? What lessons have you learned throughout the process

that you would share with others?

202

Appendix D: IRB Approval